Told you so, L&H should be comedy critics, not comedians.

>Told you so, L&H should be comedy critics, not comedians.

Blimey, you've been waiting around, haven't you?

Merely a man. But the best stand up ever.

Could we pretended that my last comment got posted in the "Bill Hick. God or man" thread.

"We have no problem with the Pub Landlord as a stand-up act"

Well, you've changed your fucking tune.

Memo to Malcolm: S.Lee isn't involved in TGP

Oh hang on, I've just remembered he's the script editor. Yeah, well, that doesn't count..

Ooh the backlash has started. You've proved your not our lapdogs then boys. Well done.

Am frankly astonished by your accusations. I think this is the best thing I have ever written.
The reason we explain the characters at the start is because no-one in the audience has seen the show before and will have no chance to see any of the episodes before recording (due to transmission) so we say who everyone is to give the running jokes through the series a bit of a chance. Admittedly I don't think we've found the best way to do that yet, but for the show to move on we can't re-expalin within the actual show. It's also a way to make the audience aware of the actors and relax the team. Seems an odd thing to complain about (on the one hand you're saying the audience isn't stupid and then on the other you say that they are)

I genuinely think that time (gentlemen please) will prove you wrong. In fact we have deliberately not attempted to deconstruct sit-com. I think the show has a very old fashioned feel. We're not laughing at sit-com. We're using an the old fashioned structure with a few more modern touches, but essentially the feel isn't much different to a Dad's Army or Hancock sort of thing.
I don't know which ones you've seen, but I would still say you need to give it a bit of time ( and also see it on Tv rather than in a studio audience cos they look much better editted together)

We have definitely not tried to make ti look cool. I have worked harder on it than anything I've ever done and I'm not even half way through the work yet. We have an unbelievable cast who are making the characters multi dimensional (obviously in the early shows you set up stuff that might make them look otherwise so you can have surprises later on).
I really don't get your problem with Al. I think he is a brilliant stand up (and yes trying to harness that into TV is going to take a while, but I think we're going the right way) and your problems with him seem to be about some kind of conspiracy theory about the way Avalon have somehow hoodwinked the world. In actual fact he has got where he is on word of mouth. I have never seen an act sell out in Edinburgh so fast and really it's because people enjoy his show and gtell their friends to go. If Avalon have some kind of magic formula how come their other shows (mine included) do not sell out in minutes?
I don't believe any of the publicity or hype because I'm not even aware that it exists. I feel honoured to be asked to write for Al and also feel confident that the work I'm doing is solid and that more than anything I've ever done this show has a chance of being a massive popular success.

But you're welcome to your opinions. After all you don't like the Alan PArtridge sit-com either and I really do. I would ask the rest of you to reserve judgement and wait til you've seen it. (Malcom - good to see you back. Smiley told me all about you!) And I'll continue to give you cynical Corpses tickets whenever you ask for them!

The one criticism I have of your site is that you look for conspiracy where there is none. I don't know what's made you so angry. Is it that Avalon didn't pay you quickly enough for some of your drawings? And I know I'll get more - no you're lying about that messages, but I am actually working on the show. I am actually the person you are talking about and I know that what you're saying is wrong. (about our motivation at least)
Hope you'll keep an open mind when it comes out and admit you were wrong about it if you change your mind. Don't think you will!
Better press on with the other 18 shows I've got to write now!

As to the audience - I have seen too many people try to judge Al by what they imagine his audience is thinking. How do you know in what way they were laughing at the show? How do you know whether they were understanding the irony or taking it at face value? To make such a judgement just by looking at a person is a worse kind of fascism than you are attributing to the audience. I think generally people get it (sometimes maybe joining in cos they think that's part of it). If they genuinely don't then I think that's funnier.If they're holding up Al as some kind of ideal and can't see that he is a sad lonely idiot (who is clearly gay and not able to express it)
All i know is that the crew (of varying backgrounds and ages) and people like the security guards at LWT (older people who you might not think would like it) are all making a point of saying how much they are enjoying it.
I genuinely want the whole family to sit down and watch this show and think there's something for everyone (if you excuse the swearing). It is embued with a love for the sit-com form which I think you have interpreted as parody, but actually isn't
Given our limited budget and the location there are only so many "plots" you can do and I am quite happy for someone to overhear something in a toilet if the thing they overhear is a bit different.

Thanks again for your comments

>have you taken a look at your audience recently? Think yourself lucky you don't have to sit with them.

Hilarious. This made me laugh vast amounts.

The only sitcom recording I've been to was for an episode of 'At Home With The Hardys' on R4, sometime before the last war, but I think it is normal practice to explain the situation to the audience beforehand, especially with a new sitcom, where they have the disadvantage of not being able to consult the Radio Times, unlike the viewers at home. Makes sense, when you think about it.

Anyhow, I shall see TGP later this year and make my own mind. Ditto The Boosh.

Re: Avalon not paying for artwork. Cheap shot, Rich - you and Al have been saving that one up for months. Avalon paid the relevant SOTCAA editor in full for all artwork last Christmas.

It's not conspiracy theories - it's sociology by any other name. Al's audience and the 11 O'Clock Show audience have more in common than you might like to think. Both shows seem contemptuous of their viewers despite being reliant upon them to make up the numbers.

The Richard Herring of 1994 would have nothing but contempt for the PR mentality that Time Gentlemen Please has generated. Depressingly, your response doesn't sound like Richard Herring talking - it sounds like you in pitching mode, pushing the buttons you feel ought to be pressed. You never used to be like this! (As for Dad's Army and Hancock, what happened to basic modesty? Yes, we're attacking you and you're defending yourself, but you've been making comments like that for a long time now. Self-promotion isn't attractive, and you've attacked it yourself in the past.)

We'd be interested in how much editorial control you have over the scripts. For example, Sex Among the Stalegmites has a quality to it that Time Gentlemen Please lacks, as do your Edinburgh stage plays - do Sky therefore insist on making concessions to the audience they're aiming for, or do you have the final word? If you were a mediocre writer, we wouldn't be so concerned; the fact is, we know you can do so much better.

The best thing you've ever written? Do you seriously include Lionel Nimrod and TMWRNJ in that assertion?

The bottom line with Al Murray is that everyone wants to be part of this big success, and the quality of the show seems to have been deemed irrelevant as a result. You're 'honoured' to work with Al? I think that's the point - as with the cast of Chris Morris' Jam, your awe at working in the presence of a 'genius' has clouded your judgement of the material itself.

We haven't 'changed our tune'. Our earlier comments about Al are entirely consistent with this thread - he's a good comedian, just nothing revolutionary or new. We're anti-hyperbole, not anti-Al. Come transmission, magazines and billboards will be plastered with the Pub Landlord holding his pint glass aloft and pulling that face. The glory-hunters will be out in force, and any dissenters will be accused of spoiling everybody's fun. It will be an unconditional success - nothing to do with Avalon hatching a conspiracy, just the result of the 'strength in numbers' mentality that has also seen the undeserved elevation of Ali G and Simon Pegg. Everyone's joining the winning team.

SOTCAA

Surely a bit closed for an open letter, don't you think? Sort of harsh but harsh.

From the day Al Murray won the Perrier Award people have been on his back. He had sold out. Obviously. Shame on him. Then the inevitable TV offers came in and, like a fool, he took one. Not quite a Faustian pact but hey let's damn him anyway.

This level of prejudice is becoming all-pervasive and, apart from being really tiresome, it hardly cultivates an atmosphere of creativity and experimentation. No wonder so many comedy writers go for the safe option when people who claim to appreciate good comedy are the most negative.

Try and remember the time when you laughed first and analysed it second?

All I'm saying is can you hold off until you see all of the show and give it a fair hearing.

I can't believe how wrong you are. Yes I am including all my work is saying this is my best work. I and Al have complete editorial control. I have spent 6 months writing this and only this. I have so far completed 7 episodes of the 22, so I expect it may be hard to keep up the quality.
I have never have and never will have any interest in PR. I would certainly never toe the line. I'm not saying we're as good as Hancock or Dad's Army, I'm saying I see the sit-com in the same mould. IE it's a situation and there are jokes and good characters (from which once it's up and running many of the laughs will come - hence our desire to explain the characters to the audience)
The thing about Avalon payments was not a cheap shot. I was just wondering if that's why you were so anti them.

I'm wondering where you guys got so self important to be honest. The old Corpses would never have been so formal as to put out an open letter, or so dumb as to judge a show on perhaps having seen two episodes in the studio (believe me they work in a totally different way on TV). I don't mind you not liking the show or Al. I'm just surprised at the attitude (which started with your e mail after the first show). You know your opinion is valid and it's interesting to have it. But guys it's just an opinion. Don't forget that.

I never say anything I've done is good. I am always fairly down on it, but I genuinely believe that in terms of writing, character and cast this is one of the most exciting things I've ever worked on, and the best show on so many levels. I think it combines the best of all the other stuff I've worked on (from plays to sketches) and is a great show case for my writing.
I think time will show that the programme is very good. And I'm not interested in PR or whether it'll sell abroad or to other channels, or in making money, or attaching myself to Al's name (in many ways this is a step down for me. I'm just a writer and an expositional postman). As always I am interested in creating my best possible work and in entertaining as many people as possible.
I am equally as amazed as you that you as people who have appreciated my past work can really not see any worth at all in this.

I am lost for words. I can only imagine it's the fan thing (that I have been guilty of myself and Stewart certainly has) of not liking something if you weren't the one who discovered it. I really can't see your continuing problem with Al. He is one of the least marketed acts I know. There's no need to market him. He's good. People are already falling oer themselves to see him. His act is brilliant and he has done something multi-layered with stand up. I think we're doing something similar with sit-com. I can't wait to see what other people think of it when it's on.
No hard feelings guys. Maybe this is for you the same as when Rik Mayall did the New Statesman for me. I hope you'll give the show a proper chance and judge it in the medium it is intended for (it's a billion times better than SATS and the characters are so much fuller- you just haven;t seen enough eps to know that yet)
I think one of us is losing touch with reality- it may be me. I've been working very hard!

SOTCAA: 95% of your web audience haven't seen this show yet. What's the point of writing an open letter about it? Why not review it when it comes out rather than slagging off the recording sessions? You're supposed to stand for facts and evidence, fellas - why not assess it when all the facts are in? I mean, if the show is edited to conceal that people seem to be sympathising with the Landlord, fine. But tell me about it after I've seen the show.

SOTCAA: 95% of your web audience haven't seen this show yet. What's the point of writing an open letter about it? Why not review it when it comes out rather than slagging off the recording sessions? You're supposed to stand for facts and evidence, fellas - why not assess it when all the facts are in? I mean, if the show is edited to conceal that people seem to be sympathising with the Landlord, fine. But tell me about it after I've seen the show.

Again - not saying I'm Rik Mayall or that you view me as being like that. Just saying the situation may be the same.
I think if you read what I said again about Dad's Army etc my intention was very clear.
Anyway, keep up the good work guys. I'm really enjoying the pages and would like to see more stuff (the HIGNFY hoax was stunningly good)soon.
Hope you don't lose your enjoyment of comedy by analysing it. A lot of comedians do. I still like to laugh myself.

Did the Corpses just write that letter so that Malcolm would come back?

"See, L&H aren't above criticism after all."

Or is that just a bit too cynical?

I've not seen TGP at all yet, but I think it's fair to introduce characters at the top of a show that no-one in the audience has seen yet. As for the "plebby" accusations, it's the one thing about SOTCAA that grates. (Why not just say Only Fools/Dad's Army is great? Because lots of people of all ages enjoy it? Seems a bit churlish to slag off those who unpretentiously and instinctively like comedy.) Once anything is in the public domain, it can be interpreted in any way. You can't help your audience - Garry Bushell likes The Simpsons, does this mean it stinks?

Just a little bit of snobbery going on, I think....

Open letter = self promotion.

End of story.

"Running own website=self-promotion", surely?

I think i agree with Justin - the 'pleb' accusation certainly are a negative point of this page - you appear, IMHO, to be saying that everyone who watches the 11 'o' clock show is of 'a low intellegence', and are too passive to demand anything more. This stereotyping is a little exaggerated surely - not everyone who watches 11 'o' clock show find it 'he funniest thing ever' or see Ian Lee as 'god'. A lot of the audience might think like this, but it unfair to say that a popular show is watched by passive audiences, who will take in anything they are presented with. The hyperdermic model, if i remember correctly, with no substancial proof to support it.

The elitist attitude is also a subject highlighted in this article - even though SOTCAA are very covert about this, it's still noticable. How many more articles are you going to produce which say 'it was better on radio, but was ruined on TV'? The problems with Al Murray, as far as a viewer of this website would see, appear to have started when he won the Perrier - another comment on acknowlegdment by the public as being bad? However you look at it, you can't tell people to demand more from comedy, but criticise programs before they have even been shown in there finished forms. Sure, a live viewing of a show is an experience, but in the end, all a live audiences is there to do is to create an atmosphere - as with any commercial product, the end results is most important. Perhaps this thread should be closed until the program is shown? I'm looking forward to seeing it, but then, i'm also looking forward to what will appear next on this site.

>"Running own website=self-promotion", surely?

Good point. In fact, posting messages to forum = self-promotion.

(explodes)

I don't want to get involved in the TGP dispute, mostly because I haven't seen it (obviously), but I just want to add something to another point that has been raised above.

Personally, I hate 11OCS and everything it stands for. However, the most intelligent person I know, who could run mental rings around everyone on this forum combined (including me) loves it. And he does know what he's talking about in comedy terms, as he also loves Brass Eye, Fist Of Fun etc.

Yes, a lot of people who like 11OCS might fall into this 'plebby' bracket. But not everyone.

I think �Time Gentleman Please� has been fairly stabbed in the back. With the new technology now available to reviewers, they no long have to wait for scripts to be finished, or programmes completed, before they are reviewed. The benefits of this technology are immense. First and foremost, the critic has been spared the hideous ordeal of giving the writer a fair chance. This has always been a one-sided deal and it's pleasing to know the balance has been tipped. Under the old method the critics waited for the show to air and then gave their opinion of it. Of course the obvious drawbacks of such a system put the reviewer at a disadvantage. Why should the reviewer have to wait for the programme to be aired? Such an arse-about-face system doesn't create that hot-off-the-press feeling we all appreciate. I for one applaud the gossipy bitchy style. I really don't know how Richard Herring can suggest that some shit-stirring from the Corpses is not an objective review of his unfinished sitcom. Is there no limit to Richard's arrogance.

Is this the 'direct action' you kept talking about then?

Not very good, is it?

No, they're going to ring up Alan Davies in the middle of the night and say "You're rubbish, you are", before sniggering and slamming the receiver down.

When's the show going out, by the way?

No, this isn't the 'direct action' we keep talking about...

I'm thinking about writing a sit-com. No idea where to set it yet, or what the characters will be. I was wondering if SOTCAA would care to review it now. Preferably "half way between Iain Lee and Ibiza".

Cheerio

Steve

>When's the show going out, by the way?

Well he's not going to tell you now, is he? Because you'll only start in on how the slot it's on at is only for peasants, and shows that he's really sold out, and the show should really go out at 4am with no visuals and the soundtracks of three shows all playing at once so that only people with special decoding equipment can decipher them. Or something.

When's that sodding article about the HIGNFY hoax coming out, eh?

Jon, why the impatience?

As a newcomer to this site I must admit to being surprised by SOTCAAs feelings about the Pub Landlord, they being obvious comedy connoiseurs. I find the character to be a very clever creation - able to appeal to the hoi poloi whilst remaining true to the socially responsible attitudes of its creator. I think the Pub Landlord fulfills a valuable function by grabbing the attention of those it lampoons, and in doing so illustrating a better/alternate/more appropriate way of thinking.
Most mysterious that the comedic worth of this character has failed to make an impression. Could it be that its popularity with the masses has swayed you into your negative opinion? Not an accusation, merely a suggestion.

I just want to say I haven't seen this show you are talking of but I have seen Al Murray and the man is funny. But then I do seem to have an endorphin imbalance and once my laughter's triggered off I'll even laugh at my own laugh so I'm not saying my judgement is rational.

By the sounds of things the sitcom isn't ground-breaking but it's only on Sky after all. I don't know why anyone should have such high expectations. It'll probably be billed after some soft porn/cop show abomination. But at least such a prelude will keep up the standard that their warm-up man has set.

I've been reading this thread with interest and I would like to make an observation...

Many people (including Rich) have criticised the corpses for judging TGP on the basis of two recording sessions. This struck me as slightly odd for a few reasons. Firstly, the day after the recording of the pilot the first email I received was from Rich asking me what I, or more probably the corpses, thought about the show. I replied with my honest opinion and this is the email Rich refers too earlier in this thread.

To then go on to suggest the 'old corpses' are dumb to judge a show on two recordings is slightly bizarre, as it suggests Rich is even more foolish to ask them to judge it on one. The only difference, that I can see, is that this time the corpses posted their opinions in a public forum.

More amusing though is the response from some forum contributors.

It's a basic fact of TV life is that most TV audiences do judge a show on the basis of one programme, usually less. This might seem a bit harsh, but consider that even if you see the weakest episodes of 'Father Ted' or 'Only Fools and Horses' you'll probably recognise the shows as good ones and worth sticking with. Similarly, you don't have to see much of 'Hippies' to know it's a very poor sitcom compared with FT.

Many of the forum contributors still sided with Rich though, heavily criticising the corpses for judging the show so soon on the basis of two recordings. It was a pity that the most critical then went on to spoil their arguments by judging the new BBC2 sitcom 'Rhona' of which .. er, only one episode has so far been broadcast.

Now before anyone says 'Yes but the broadcast was the finished product', I have to say I don't really buy that as an excuse. I've been to a number of TV and Radio recordings now, and I can honestly say after viewing the finished/edited shows afterwards I've never thought "Blimey, that's change a lot..." let alone "Blimey, this is much funnier than I remember". This includes sketch shows, which are the most likely to be changed during the editing, due to their scatological nature.

Given that the studio audience are primarily there to convey a sense of atmosphere to guide the audience at home (studio audiences laugh considerably more than the home audience) then surely being in a studio audience should be a superior experience than watching the 'finished' product at home anyway.

Just a thought...

Any negative comments made about Rhona were based on the first episode - but that doesn't mean i'm not going to watch t again. SOTCAA appear, from the first posting, to have made thier entire judgement about time Gentleman PLease based on what they have seen - whereas people hwho critised Rhona will (i hope) watch more episode before making a final comment - the opinions i have given now are just a guide to people how are intereasted in the show or may have missed it - i'm reserving my final judgement 'till later.

And the idea that "being in a studio audience should be a superior experience than watching the 'finished' product at home anyway." still seems a little strange to me. Does that mean that watching anything in it's creative stage is better than seeing the final product? Or does it just work with comedy - is so, why? (genuine question)

Oh, and i wasn't siding with Richard Herring - i just wasn't siding with SOTCAA either. I'll wait till i can make my own judgement on the show before i do that.

Deary me Rob. No, no, no.
You are all welcome to your opinion and I am interested in it.
I was more referring of the arrogance of the e mail and of the postings in here. You're all lovely boys and know your comedy, but in the past you have never been so snobbish and superior. To refer me to the Corpses page about sit coms was a tad arrogant I think.
You all also seem to be annoyhed about the stuff that goes on in the studio - how bad the warm up man was (in the e mail), how patronised you felt at having the characters explained- how annoyed you were by the "Nazi" audience (I've looked at them carefully and I don't see it, sorry - kids, parents, middle aged men from record companies, a pilot were all talked to by Al last night - quite a cross section)
None of these things are relevant to the finished show.
I seriously believe you have allowed yourselves to become influenced by these factors and then not enjoyed the show for what it actually is. The fact you've been so down on Al for so long ( and don't pretend you haven't) can't have helped.
I think the show is both traditional and ground breaking. We are constantly being warned by Sky that the show is too racey, but they have not stopped us doing anything yet. So we're covering some subjects that are rarely seen in sit com. I think last night's "gay night" ep showed some real depth to the LL. His homophobia clearly as a result of his repressed homosexuality. It also had a succession of cracking jokes and a complicated and integrated plot.

I am amazed that none of you can see this (or even a bit of it). The comments have been so negative. I have not changed. I have not sold out. Like I say, I've worked very hard on this and although we're all learning as we go I think it's turning into something very special.

I just worry that you've all got a bit full of yourselves. To be so opinionated and pre-judgmental. It's not like any of you. But maybe now you have crossed that line from critical comedy fans to critics.

A sit com is different than a stnad-up/ sketch show in that it's more character based so the jokes are often in the form of reaction or characters behaving in a certain way. Hence explaining the characters. Hence giving it a few shows to get to know the characters.
You can make a judgement from one episode of course. But I would have thought you would all be intelligent and fair enough to wait a bit before writing "an open letter" . C'mon guys!

And no-one has addressed my point about your patronising attitude to the audience. How do you know in what way they were laughing? How dare you presume to say what they think because you don't like the way they look?

Keep up the good work. I think you're all doing an amazing thing here (genuinely) but don't be like Al Murray and start to believe your own hype!!!
Your opinions are valid. Thank you for spending the time to give me them. I hope you'll view the series (airing on 11th Sept onwards) with a fair eye and see if maybe you've pre judged it.
It's fucking great in my opinion
Got to go and write some more now

Three points:

1) I was once in the studio with a fairly famous indie band who shall remain nameless, who were struggling to get a satisfactory bassline for a song that I honestly thought sounded shite. When it was released, in the full, completed version, I realised that it was actually brilliant.

2) It is obvious that most forum users have rather extreme and non-mainstream tastes in comedy, so maybe as someone said below, Time Gentlemen Please genuinely isn't meant for us. Saying that we SHOULD like it because we like comedy is similar to saying that heavy metal fans should like Deacon Blue because they like music.

3) I'm with Mr Herring about the judging of the audience by appearance alone. This smacks of a surprising lack of intelligence among people who are normally capable of putting forward extremely intelligent arguments.

"I was once in the studio with a fairly famous indie band who shall remain nameless, who were struggling to get a satisfactory bassline for a song that I honestly thought sounded shite. When it was released, in the full, completed version, I realised that it was actually brilliant."

Was it Blur by any chance?

I would have been in the audience of Time Gentlemen Please if Richard Herring had sent my ticket (my email was ignored a long with my Valentine and death threats: I got the same treatment from Posh and Becks when I asked whether I could be godfather to their sprog.) Just because I'm an tagged sex-pest, it doesn't mean I'm a bad person.

A tagged sex-pest? Right! Let's get him!

*Rolls up copy of News Of The World and attacks Gee Whiz with it by mistake*

Is topical comedy dead? See above post for details.

I've only bothered reading the top few spats discussing this issue, (and I'll raise my hand here and say I'm fundamentally biased but, it appears - so are you guys so we're even), but frankly, this *is* the best sustained writing Rich has done up until this point. Having a script editor who knows Rich's material as well as Stu does is *obviously* working... episode 2 shot last night was in parts not simply laugh out loud funny but vicious, sensitive, poignant and desperate.
And as to SOTCAA's comment re: Al's audience, - frankly don't be such a bunch of patronising arses. It's gits like you who give the guilt ridden middle classes/comedy audiences a bad name. You forget that you see comedy all the time - most people who see Al see him once every six months if that, and when they do see him, they love the stupidity of the english subsumed character being shown to them in such a ludicrous form. Could this be why they laugh? Possibly? Stop feeling so bloody guilty and look at the history of performed comedy to take a look at how ungroundbreaking, uncontrovertial and wholly acceptable Al's - jaysus - more or less Shakespearian grotesque really is.
And one more thing - if you don't want to sit with Al's audience then I hate to remind you, but you don't have to.
Perhaps you'd prefer that Al censor his act so your sensitive ears wouldn't have to hear such blindly offensive material? I'd love to hear your criticisms of Hick's material re: Tiffany and Debbie Gibson - disgusting! The audience is obviously full of perverts or they wouldn't laugh!
Come <emph>on</> people... let's raise this discussion above the banal "Sam Taylor" level eh?

Oh lighten up. The Corpses are just being funny. Why does everyone take criticism so seriously? The comments about the audience were amusing. If you were one of the audience members you should at least be proud to have been acknowledged, usually the audiences are the most forgetable thing about a show.

You've obviously made a lasting impression.

Reading this website is like watching a circle of self-important Portillos masturbating onto a meaningless thesis scrawled in crayon on the back of an old Goodies annual.

Still, at least that means it's entertaining, unlike most of the Internet.

I still can't believe this 'Open Letter' got written in the first place. To slag off a brand new show after its FIRST EPISODE has only just been recorded shows an almost naive degree of impatience - the Corpses' own encyclopaedic knowledge of comedy should have warned them that many shows take a few episodes to get into their stride. The mighty Python took a whole series to start getting seriously funny. It doesn't even sound as if there's anything actually wrong with the show - it just wasn't exactly what the Corpses hoped for. But by the sound of it, if they were going in with that attitude, *nothing* would have been.

And if they're going to start making these hopeless generalisations about the audience and what they found funny, then how the hell do they feel about the 'Germans' episode of Fawlty Towers? Pandering to the worst English instincts of xenophobia, or viciously satirising them? According to the Corpses, no-one's equipped to make that judgment but them, and anyone else who laughs is either an idiot or a racist or both (including us plebs on the forum)...

Why are you sticking up for the audience Mogwai? By all accounts they sound putrid.

The audience sounds like an average group of people trying to enjoy a night out, with a smattering of sour-faced, self-important 'webmasters' stuck in the middle of them to me.

Why don't 'the corpses' do something more constructive with their time, like deleting their nauseating 'open letter' and replacing it with an apology.

Or possibly a joke?

>The audience sounds like an average group of people trying to enjoy a night out, with a smattering of sour-faced, self-important 'webmasters' stuck in the middle of them to me.

By the 'middle' do you mean their soul? With such dwellings in their inner core it is no wonder they appeared disorientated and from what I can make out uncolour-coordinated.

I think I can say, hand on my heart, I'm still alive.

Hang on, is this thing only going to be on Sky then?

Yes

Christ... that's worse than Channel 5. So all these people writing essays, and no fucker's ever going to see it.

>Christ... that's worse than Channel 5. So all these people writing essays, and no fucker's ever going to see it.

Which brings us to....where exactly is this PR overload of Al Murray that the Corpses are so affronted by? I've heard two interviews with Murray this year (London Live and Mark & Lard - neither was exactly a ratings winner).

btw The Corpses comment about the TGP audience may have been provocative, but it wasn't funny. If they get offended by rowdy groups of people, I suggest they don't go to any pubs either.

>If they get offended by rowdy groups of people, I suggest they don't go to any pubs either.


Or comedy clubs.

Or towns.

Come on the Corpses have hit the nail on the head. Mass genocide really IS the answer to improving comedy.

>Which brings us to....where exactly is this PR overload of Al Murray that the Corpses are so affronted by? I've heard two interviews with Murray this year (London Live and Mark & Lard - neither was exactly a ratings winner).

Mark and Lard not a ratings winner? They've got the biggest radio show in the country on audience share - their afternoon show has a higher audience share than any other, taking the title off the Top 40 on Sundays. It's a big show is M&L.

And they are very funny as well. Much funnier than most "proper" comedy.

>
>Mark and Lard not a ratings winner? They've got the biggest radio show in the country on audience share - their afternoon show has a higher audience share than any other, taking the title off the Top 40 on Sundays. It's a big show is M&L.

Don't get me wrong - it's my favourite Radio 1 show by a country mile. But their "star-guest" interviews are very very lowkey, and rare. I think they've only done about six this year, if that (League Of Gentlemen, Meera Syal (and was that even this year? can't remember). The point I was trying to make (badly) was that it's hardly the same as Al appearing on Richard & Judy-style interview shows, or in character on They Think/Buzzcocks etc. It's not exactly a PR machine gone even madder.

As with many of the corpses theories on Al Murray, this idea of him riding on a wave of PR is just nonsense. I'll say it again, the public like him. He has got where he is by word of mouth. He not only won the Perrier award last year, but the one which the punters voted for.
Your Hitler cartoon is pathetic.
The one with the piss is also inaccurate. If the show is piss then the glass should be full of six months of piss for the first 8 episodes. We are both working extremely hard on creating the best show we can. You may not like what we're doing, but we are doing it for the audience (not pissing on them) and they seem to be enjoying it so far.
Obviously they are all scum. So their opinion doesn't count. Yes they must be, because some of you sat near some people you objected to on the one or two occasions you've been to the show.
I have no problem with you not liking the show (but will continue to defend it). I am somewhat surprised at the vindictive nature of some of your comments and drawings.
I mean the Hitler thing. Are you taking the piss out of yourselves there? It truly is worthy of the most stupid sixth former in the world. It's like something from "Thank God, it's satire day". Really. It's that bad.
Are you trying to make me stop caring about what "fans" think of my work? Because I do care and so such knee jerk rubbish is personally offensive (especially as I'd have counted you all as friends - not that puts me above criticism, but I'd have thought it might mean you weren't wilfully rude and at least had the grace to listen to some of my arguments rather than just deciding they're all shit)
This site would have an excellent chance of bringing punters and comics together (i know a lot of comics have looked at it), but when you are so wilfully and pointlessly rude you're going to put them off ever even looking at what you're saying - I know this is the case with Simon Pegg. You had a great chance to actually start a conversation up with the guy, to put forward your views, politely (and in a clever way that I know you're capable of) but no, you went for a knee jerk and now he'll never come back again. (Boo hoo I'm sure from you)
To be honest if this is a Scooby Doo style plot to scare me away from the site, cos there's uranium buried in it, then you're doing a pretty good job.

Maybe I'm being pathetic and grumpy. I'm certainly very tired (it's very hard work pissing on your audience this much). But I just expected better of you. Forgive me if I have missed the point here.

22:00 SOTCAA meeting room

Editor 1: (looking at a clipboard) That's Simon Pegg and.. Richard Herring (Puts a tick on a peice of paper on the clipboard) Whose next?

Editor 2: Ooh, there's so many to chose from - let's do a woman...

Editor 1:(Intereasted) A woman..?

Editor 2: Can we, can we, can we?

Editor 1: Right. Mel and Sue it is then... (starts writing 0n clipboard)

Re: Herring's comments on the Al Murray cartoons. I completely agree. They are shite. The first one is simply the cheapest shot I've ever seen. Besides, if the audience are so awful, then Herring and Murray can't be insulting them with the metaphorical piss that is their show, can they?

The Hitler cartoon. Well, well. That old chestnut. I'm sorry, but this 'the stupid plebs don't understand the subtleties of the humour' argument was levelled at Alf Garnett thirty plus years ago. It was bollocks then and it's bollocks now.

One - why shouldn't comedians parody prejudiced and bigoted behaviour? Sure, some ignorant bigots won't get it, but it's hardly likely to make them more bigoted. Two - perhaps you think it will turn right thinking liberals into Nazis - but that is simply a 'hypodermic needle' model of the media and, outside the home for the terminally arseholic that is The Daily Mail, no-one subscribes to that anymore. Or do they?

I have found your attitude towards the whole Al Murray affair very disappointing to be honest. I think this is an excellent site - possibly one of the best on the web - with painstakingly researched articles, and a lot of intelligently argued points. However, a major plank of your arguments about Al Murray seem to revolve around this 'monkey see, monkey do' idea that the 'plebs' won't get it. Who are these 'plebs'? People who don't read this site? Don't be so damn arrogant. If TGP isn't funny, if the jokes are stale, the laughs cheap, and the ideas derogative then say so. But for Christ's sake pack this 'plebs' thing in. A vast number of British citizens laughed at Morecambe and Wise, Tommy Cooper, Python, Blackadder, Only Fools - popular entertainment should be good, but it must be popular. The problem with much contemporary TV is not 'plebs', it's overpaid, overvalued journalists and media types ignoring 'plebs' because they're so obsessed with 'trends' - please do not, even indirectly, fuel their fire.

>11:30 SOTCAA meeting room
>
>Editor 1: (whispers) Shit. We're pissing off all the wrong people with this "plebs" thing.
>
>Editor 2: Quiet, You Fool. We Are The Chosen Ones.
>
>Editor 1: B-but they've rumbled us over this Al Murray stuff... It's not really any different from Al Garnett, is it...?
>
>Editor 2: That Is Heresy, You Snivelling Worm. Al Murray Is The Fruit Of Satan's Loins, For He Is Worshipped By The Plebs.
>
>Editor 1: It's the same as that Germans episode from Fawlty Towers, and we said that was great... (wrings hankie) Oh, what if the audience don't really hate the French and the Germans, and think Al's funny precisely because he does? What if Warren Mitchell gets imbroiled in all this? Haven't we just witlessly painted ourselves into a corner? Oh arse... (starts to sob)

Editor 2: ENOUGH, DOLT! I WILL HAVE NO MORE OF THIS WHIMPERING! THE CORPSES ARE NEVER WRONG! WE WILL NEVER RETRACT OUR OPINIONS, FOR THEY ARE SET AS IN STONE! IF WE SAY AL MURRAY IS HITLER, THEN HITLER HE SHALL REMAIN, NO MATTER HOW INFANTILE WE END UP LOOKING! WE... oh, stop sniffing, for Christ''s sake... WE SHALL DESTROY AL MURRAY, BUT PREFERABLY WITHOUT MENTIONING EITHER ALF GARNETT OR BASIL FAWLTY! DANG RICHARD HERRING! DANG HIM TO HECK!

Editor 1: (blows nose)

Why does everyone take everything so personally? The cartoons are obviously just a kind of visual diary on how they felt having attended one of the shows. They are entitled to express this. I'm sure every audience member would have a different take on how they perceived it.

They are giving you an insight into their own feelings so there is no need to violate the priveledged view you have been given with this scorn.

Scorn? I can't really see anyone giving an scorn, just people making amusing comments based on thier own opinion, giving us an insight into thier own feelings like you say the Corpses are - there's no difference is there - this forum is about opinions - we can't have one person's opinion being more important than another - uunless it was a fact, but i haven't seen any of those printed here. My advice would be lighten up Kinder - there's more important things than Al Murray

I've stayed out of this, given that I haven't seen any TGP recordings. However, seeing as though the audience issue has come up...

Audience response and behaviour is vital in understanding how a show/performer is understood. Nothing very complicated there, but when Al Murray's very creditable work touches on areas of national pride you are inevitably going to invite pockets of the audience who will disregard or totally misinterpret the satirising of bigotry as bigotry which they can concur with. I've seen Al's show and heard muttered "too bloody right"s from audience members. Am I the only one to have picked up on this? Well no, it appears that the Corpses have too.

Anything which touches on this area invites this problem, with few exceptions. 'Made In Britain', 'Romper Stomper' and 'The Firm' are films which have tackled national 'pride' with good intentions, but have belatedly been adopted by the far right who fast forward through the bits they don't want to hear or maybe just don't register them. In music, Major Accident are an equally balanced group (I know them - I'd trust them implicitly) who have a virulent right wing fanbase. This isn't suggesting the audience members are thick or ugly, just a very real possibility that people are interpreting Al's show in their own way - divided from his intention. Not an accusation against Al & Rich's work, just something they should bear in mind.

Alright, those examples are fairly obscure and Al Murray's a different case because he does sell out shows, he's very accessible and everyone likes him. Great. The "Hitler" cartoon is maybe highlighting the issue I've just brought up, but it's just opinion. The top half suggests something else, again just opinion. I don't see it as spiteful.

I would respond PJ only I don't class your opinions in my 'importance' top five.

Bentley, you could just as well attack Linehan & Matthews because 'Father Ted' feeds the prejudices of anti-Catholics. There are limits to how far a writer can be concerned with misinterpretation, and if it's clear that a character is ridiculous, or the situation isn't to be taken realistically, then as much has been done as can be. It seems to me. But I'd like to read your reply.

P.S Bentley - you're my number 1! Real first class opinions you displayed there.

No one has mentioned that some gay men get off on dressing up as skin heads. This makes a mockery of those people who enjoy being stupid bigots.

lol

Let us not forget the Corpses are not infallible. They didn't like "I'm Alan Partridge" yet they foolishly heap praise on complete shit like "Absolutely". "I'm Alan Partridge" was a great series, "Absolutely" was poorly written and poorly acted.

And they didn't like Jam either, which is blatently one of the best programs to be shown on TV. "Dark is easy" indeed.

Thought Jam was fascinating - but not often funny. It's a bit like Special AKA and Rhoda Dakar's 'The Bolier' - I'm glad I heard it but I doubt I'll want to again. Absolutely - very funny, even if it wasn't well acted (sometimes it was). I liked IAP but agree with some of the Corpses comments about the way it misjudged the humour of the Partridge character.

But this is all by the by. I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with all the Corpses opinions about which comedies are good and which are bad. The problem with their attacks on TGP, for me, is that they place so much faith on their 'understanding' of the feelings of the audience, and the apparent implication that the Pub Landlord character's popularity rests on 'plebs' not getting the joke. To me, unlike the opinions they have expressed on other comedy series on this site, this is an opinion with little or no evidence to substantiate it. Even worse, it's an idea which gives credence, however indirectly, to the idea that only an educated few should have full access to all forms of artistic expression, whilst the 'plebs' viewing must be carefully policed.

"The problem with their attacks on TGP, for me, is that they place so much faith on their 'understanding' of the feelings of the audience, and the apparent implication that the Pub Landlord character's popularity rests on 'plebs' not getting the joke. To me, unlike the opinions they have expressed on other comedy series on this site, this is an opinion with little or no evidence to substantiate it. Even worse, it's an idea which gives credence, however indirectly, to the idea that only an educated few should have full access to all forms of artistic expression, whilst the 'plebs' viewing must be carefully policed."

Personally, I don't think the corpses where putting faith in their mind-reading abilities as it seems to me that it is other forum contributors who have focussed in on this point. They were rather flippant about it, which would probably explain the cartoon.

I feel they may have only mentioned it to highlight that there may be some more serious failings in the TGP. If significant parts of the audience are laughing at a joke for the wrong reason, then surely something has gone wrong somewhere along the line? I can't believe a writer would be happy for their comedy to be remembered for the wrong reasons.

And yes, I do realise I've made just as many assumptions as other forum readers.

Yes - but how do they *know* that people are laughing at the jokes for the wrong reasons? And what are the right reasons for laughing at something? What are the right reasons for laughing at Derek and Clive's mysogyny? Or Alan Partridge's bigotry? Or Cleese's antics in The Germans? Surely in any comedy, but especially the dangerous, cutting edge comedy the Corpses love, some of the humour derives from the darker side of our nature?

"Yes - but how do they *know* that people are laughing at the jokes for the wrong reasons?"

To quote earlier in the thread, from Bentley:

"I've seen Al's show and heard muttered "too bloody right"s from audience members"

Presumably without a hint of irony. I've met people who go along with the jokes on the 11ocs, not because they're doing a clever double bluff, but because they are prejudicial gits. You can easily form this opinion based on what they say, there isn't a need to apply any guess work.

We've all met 'too bloody rights' in our time and that's presumably why the 11ocs writers thought it would be funny to try and send them up...

"And what are the right reasons for laughing at something? What are the right reasons for laughing at Derek and Clive's mysogyny? Or Alan Partridge's bigotry? Or Cleese's antics in The Germans? Surely in any comedy, but especially the dangerous, cutting edge comedy the Corpses love, some of the humour derives from the darker side of our nature?"

The reason why those examples you list are funny is that they highlight the ridiculousness of the characters the actors are portraying. They're absurd, they are not the dark side in all of us.

Not much to add, except:

The cartoon: embarrassing, really truly embarrassing.

Absolutely: Sorry, Gee, but the Corpses are right, it was brilliant (I like the slagged fourth series too, though, so there). The Fast Show would never have happened without it.

>"Yes - but how do they *know* that people are laughing at the jokes for the wrong reasons
>"I've seen Al's show and heard muttered "too bloody right"s from audience members"
>Presumably without a hint of irony. I've met people who go along with the jokes on the 11ocs, not because they're doing a clever double bluff, but because they are prejudicial gits. You can easily form this opinion based on what they say, there isn't a need to apply any guess work.

OK - fair enough - but this is still not a justification for slagging off a comedy show - even the exercrable 11ocs. The 'too bloody right' crowd loved Alf Garnett - but does this mean the show was a failure? Plenty of people understood *exactly* what Garnett was all about. There are prejudical gits who miss the point of a lot of things, but this does not invalidate those things. The 11ocs was unfunny because it was badly written. It was offensive because it's mysogyny and homophobia were not graced with even the skimpiest ironic sheen. Perhaps this is also true of TGP - but this is not my memory of what the Corpses said. And the Corpses are guilty of guess work. Simply overhearing a few prejudiced comments does not justify assumptions about the audience as a whole. Even if it did though, my central point still remains. Are we saying that satire of prejudice and bigotry should be restricted or not attempted because some people won't get the joke?

>"And what are the right reasons for laughing at something? What are the right reasons for laughing at Derek and Clive's mysogyny? Or Alan Partridge's bigotry? Or Cleese's antics in The Germans? Surely in any comedy, but especially the dangerous, cutting edge comedy the Corpses love, some of the humour derives from the darker side of our nature?"
>
>The reason why those examples you list are funny is that they highlight the ridiculousness of the characters the actors are portraying. They're absurd, they are not the dark side in all of us.

Partridge possibly, but Derek and Clive - maybe not. I think my central point here is that no-one can be sure what the 'right' reasons for laughing are. I find the whole idea of this a bit odd.

"OK - fair enough - but this is still not a justification for slagging off a comedy show - even the exercrable 11ocs."

No it's not, I suspect they were using it to highlight that there maybe more serious failings in the show. It wasn't their main point.

"The 'too bloody right' crowd loved Alf Garnett - but does this mean the show was a failure? Plenty of people understood *exactly* what Garnett was all about. There are prejudical gits who miss the point of a lot of things, but this does not invalidate those things. The 11ocs was unfunny because it was badly written. It was offensive because it's mysogyny and homophobia were not graced with even the skimpiest ironic sheen. Perhaps this is also true of TGP - but this is not my memory of what the Corpses said. And the Corpses are guilty of guess work. Simply overhearing a few prejudiced comments does not justify assumptions about the audience as a whole. Even if it did though, my central point still remains. Are we saying that satire of prejudice and bigotry should be restricted or not attempted because some people won't get the joke?"

I'm not saying any of these things (apart from the 11ocs stuff) and I wouldn't suggest they were branding the *whole* audience with the same brush as that would include themselves surely?

The point is that the corpses seem to think (oh great, more guessing here) TGP has got the balance wrong - too many people seem to miss the point the authors are trying to get across and if that really is the case then there is a problem.

>>The reason why those examples you list are funny is that they highlight the ridiculousness of the characters the actors are portraying. They're absurd, they are not the dark side in all of us.
>Partridge possibly, but Derek and Clive - maybe not. I think my central point here is that no-one can be sure what the 'right' reasons for laughing are. I find the whole idea of this a bit odd.

You could go into a deep debate on this whole subject. When it comes to the Al Murray's act the character is a send up of a particular type of pub landlord, with familiar characteristics we all recognise. Given that it is a send up then if someone is laughing at PL's views because they agree with them, I would say that is fairly 'wrong' as it isn't what Al Murray intended.

I'm not suggesting that's FACT though.

Some people laugh at bigoted characters because they say to themselves, what a moron I'm glad I'm not like that. Whilst others laugh because racism and sexism, supposedly, have been outlawed and hearing their little prejudices aired gets them excited. It's not the writer's fault if some members of the audience don't understand irony. Sure, the writer could make it so obvious that there isn't any confusion but then they'd be no subtly. If some simpleton doesn't understand what they're watching fuck 'em (not literally though)

What's Al Stewart done to deserve all this anyway?


A couple of naff 1970s albums, yeah, but that's hardly a hanging offence...

The Year Of The Cat?

>There are limits to how far a writer can be concerned with misinterpretation, and if it's clear that a character is ridiculous, or the situation isn't to be taken realistically, then as much has been done as can be. It seems to me. But I'd like to read your reply.

Nope, agree with that. I wasn't blaming anyone, just guessing what the Corpses were trying to say and what I suspect Richard Herring is trying to avoid commenting on.

Obviously I'm not suggesting we censor anything which could spark off the "too bloody right" response. Murray/L& H have done as much as they can, I would hope (NOT having seen TGP) but maybe one of them should respond to that point, in light of everything else that has been brought up on this thread.

If Richard needs his memory jogged, this is from his second message:

>I think generally people get it (sometimes maybe joining in cos they think that's part of it). If they genuinely don't then I think that's funnier.If they're holding up Al as some kind of ideal and can't see that he is a sad lonely idiot (who is clearly gay and not able to express it)

Not treating the issue a little bit lightly there, eh? Not laughing at the audience himself?

"Even worse, it's an idea which gives credence, however indirectly, to the idea that only an educated few should have full access to all forms of artistic expression, whilst the 'plebs' viewing must be carefully policed."

But what's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. Sterilise 'em, I say.

Prserve us from the chaos of democracy...

Hitler 'ad the right idea. There's too many of 'em over 'ere. Getting dole money as soon as they crawl out from under a lorry. Taking our jobs. They've all gay the lot of 'em. You put one of 'em on a housing estate and within no time, days literally, you'll get a slum. I'm not racist, I just don't like 'em. You use to able to leave your front door open. Not now you can't. Goes without saying they're the cause of everything. They knew their place when they were on jam jars, now they fink they own the country.

Yes, that was a different, more innocent age, when homosexuals used to appear on jam jars.

Young boys would collect them like football cards.

"I've got Oscar Wilde, W.H.Auden, and Joe Orton... I'll swap you William Of Orange for Edward the Second... anyone ever seen one of Michelangelo?... my Mum got me another Benjamin Britten and I TOLD her I already had 2..."

Yeah? Too bloody right...

Anyway, we don't have to have this argument becuase, as was pointed out in the original SOTCAA post, the audience is now "halfway between Iain Lee and Ibiza". Presumably, that's somewhere in the middle of France, right?

Cheerio

Steve

No, Iain Lee is on holiday in the Seychelles. So the TGP audience are lost in Central Africa.

Re: The 'Hitler' cartoon. Well, for us, the fact that we can't even be bothered to think of an original metaphor is what makes it really funny, etc.

It gives us no pleasure to moan about TGP, and we don't do it for the sake of it. Anything that appears 'rude' is simply us ossifying how we felt at the time. Certainly not personal. And if we wanted to deny you a chance to argue back, we wouldn't bother including a forum in the first place.

We'll say it again - hardly any of SOTCAA is negative. About 90% of it is either celebratory (Archive Review, Hidden Archive) or factual (Edit News). Most people seem to undertand that no matter how boldly our opinions are stated they still remain opinions. All we do is remove the phrase 'This is only our opinion, but...' from the start of each sentence. If you want to tell us to fuck off (form an orderly queue...), the forum is always there.

We'd be the first to admit that the Simon Pegg matter could have been handled better - we pissed a lot of people off to the detriment of having a proper discussion. But it all comes back to the same thing - the accusation of 'arrogance' only seems to apply to negative criticism, never to bland praise. A newspaper referring to 'comic genius Simon Pegg' is just as arrogant as us asking 'what's the point of Simon Pegg?', we would argue. Both extremes appear to close the argument.

A few things we're been pondering on, though...

The Perrier Award? Well, you remember the politics of the situation. Avalon created an atmosphere whereby the Perrier committe would have looked foolish and out-of-touch if they'd voted any other way. And if Avalon didn't need the PR kick of winning the award, why did they make such a childish fuss about being excluded from the nominations? This was all covered in the 'Dot Dot Dot' article, but nobody from Avalon has come on to set the record straight. (No reason why they should, of course, but...y'know, the forum's there.)

We don't doubt that a lot of people love and understand Al Murray's act, and so they should. We also don't doubt that a lot of people will enjoy TGP. But we have difficulty buying the idea that, with the way the comedy industry operates, an act can become famous through word of mouth (and being good) alone. If that was the case, why didn't L&H become household names long ago? Haven't you, Richard, said that the reason why Fist of Fun/TMWNRJ didn't become ratings winners is because the BBC didn't publicise them?

As regards PR in general - here's an example. Tony Parsons on Late Review, stating that 'Al Murray will be the biggest thing in comedy this time next year - see him now before he starts selling out Wembley Arena'. Get the subtext - he's telling us that we're all sad losers if we refuse to join a club. Parsons isn't in with Avalon or anything - he simply understands, like them, that everyone loves a success story and will want to be a part of it. With this media mentality, who needs conspiracy theories?

He also made this statement in full knowledge that he'd be quoted on the billboards, which he was.

But anyway, we really do hope that, when we watch future episodes of TGP, we will consider ourselves wrong. We honestly don't give our views in order to be insulting - we're just making our theories public, and asking people to consider and comment on them. Which we hope you'll continue to do.

We are right though.

The Perrier committee painted themselves into that corner. And so did the previous ones. Al should have won in one of the previous years. It was getting embarrassing that he kept getting nominated. The Perrier committee tried to save embarrassment by barring him for bogus reasons (things that would have barred several previous winners). Avalon pointed this out. Also plenty of other people weren't happy. Perrier had to change their minds back. Al won (at last) cos his show was great.
It is good that things do get publicised if they are good.TGP will have the support of its network. This will help us a good deal (and piss us off if the latest trailer is anything to go by). But cos something gets good write ups and press is not the fault of Al. Maybe he is actually that good. Maybe he isn't (think there's a good chance he will be able to fill a big venue next year so for once Tony "Twat" parsons might be right - of course he may be after self promotion being the "first" to spot something. One might argue you were doing the same by being the "first" to slag something)
You know I love you guys. I think you are wrong on this occasion. I hope you will be pleasantly surprisedc by the depth and funniness of the series. (There's some incredibly cutting edge stuff- especially for Sky - gags about Lady Di. You wouldn't exp[ect that. Maybe even a version of the L&H lady Di routine which I would never have thought could be put on TV - and may not bea able to be)
And Lady Di aside there are practically NO references to famous people, or celebrities, or jokes about TV shows or casual mentions of Keith Chegwin as a punch line (occasionally from characters who are meant to have bad senses of humour- that's the joke. Ms Jackson is naff enough to make gags about Viagra, but we aren't, if that makes sense.) Find me a modern sit-com that can say the same. You *could* watch this show in America or in 20 years time and you wouldn't be constantly confused about what was being talked about (I'm not saying it will be watched in those circumstances, but I'm proud that it could. From a comedy perspective, not from a sales one)
I hope you can overcome your aversion to the LL, cos there's some lovely stuff happening in this show. And we've got an unbelievable cast.
You keep on doing what you're doing, but if you're interested in the TRUTH, rather than scoring points and making cheap shots, then I would encourage comedians to come here and comment. That doesn't mean you can't criticise them, but I think you'll get more out of it if you are thoughtful about the way you do it.
You know me guys. Water off a duck's back. But when I'm three weeks behind and working my arse off it's a bit annoying to be accused of being lazy and pissing on the punters.
That's my last word on it for the moment fellas. Let's let the programme speak for itself. I would be interested to hear all of your views, except for kinder surprise's.

To the Corpses
This posting seems very fair. I would agree with what you said about the bulk of the site ('hardly any of SOTCAA is negative. About 90% of it is either celebratory (Archive Review, Hidden Archive) or factual (Edit News').

But a couple of points. My accusation of arrogance is nothing to do with negativity but the elements of (in my view unnecessary) elitism that occasionally crep into your arguments.

>As regards PR in general - here's an example. Tony Parsons on Late Review, stating that 'Al Murray will be the biggest thing in comedy this time next year - see him now before he starts selling out Wembley Arena'. Get the subtext - he's telling us that we're all sad losers if we refuse to join a club. Parsons isn't in with Avalon or anything - he simply understands, like them, that everyone loves a success story and will want to be a part of it. With this media mentality, who needs conspiracy theories?

But the media, more often than not, are far more interested in slagging stuff off. Sure, they want to be 'first' to catch on to a new trend but it doesn't take long before the backlash starts. I understand your frustration at the 'bland' acceptance of many acts by the media, but personally, I'd find it a lot easier to take if I didn't know that within two months what was once 'unmissable' and 'truly original' was going to be 'stale' and 'tired'. But that's another story. It is certainly true that the broadsheets in particular fix their star on TV/films/plays of dubious worth and then praise them to the skies.

>I would be interested to hear all of your views, except for kinder surprise's.

I feel abused.

Goodnight Montana, we'll be back soon...

"I feel abused"

Let me give you a hug, darling...

Tony Parsons? 'Ckin hell. I saw Al Murray at Up The Creek about a year ago and thought he was really good. But I don't know. Not if Tony Parsons likes him.

Man And Boy? Big Hairy Minge And Boy, more like.

Cheerio

Steve

Tony Parsons, of course, once got married to Julie Burchill.

How can anyone trust his judgement, after a blunder like that?

Jon I didn't realise you had such a warm heart.

Sweetie.

>Tony Parsons, of course, once got married to Julie Burchill.
>
>How can anyone trust his judgement, after a blunder like that?

Is blunder the right word here?

It's a bit too "Oh whoops!" isn't it? A bit too "Oh deary me! I've got married by mistake!"

Re: The Hitler cartoon.

Rubbish joke, fair enough. But it seemed preferable to my earlier idea of doing a Histor and Pliny pastiche ("WAAARK! Hello children, welcome to Time Gentlemen Please. I'm Al, Sky TV's magical one-dimensional racist pub landlord...", etc). But I'm no good at drawing crows.

Having said that there are other bits on this site concerning Hitler, World War II and the comedy world. It's a private joke between the site editors (a non-sensical, non-satirical analogy which we'd originally planned to do more of on here but I doubt we'll bother now). But hey, we wouldn't want to accuse you of judging something on one joke rather than waiting to see how the full thing develops. Ho.

Hope that's true about a proper On The Hour release. People won't get your reference to "Thank God It's Satire Day" otherwise...

Shame. That one sounds funny.
You sweetie.However, the LL is not magic.

>Shame. That one sounds funny.
>You sweetie.However, the LL is not magic.

Is it just me or does Richard Herring appear to have completely flipped?

Moving back to Parsons' approval of Al Murray.. I'm sure I remember him on the Late Review saying how the Glam Metal Detectives was a marvellous, innovative, etc. new show. So how can he claim to know anything about anything?

(name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed) (name removed) and (name removed)

>Moving back to Parsons' approval of Al Murray.. I'm sure I remember him on the Late Review saying how the Glam Metal Detectives was a marvellous, innovative, etc. new show. So how can he claim to know anything about anything?

He also thought There's Something About Mary was the funniest film ever made. (He repeated this opinion in his end-of-year list as well, so it was doubly hyperbolic, if that's the right adjective for the word 'hyperbole').

BTW Chris Morris's encounter with Parsons for Radio 1 (Biddly Boddly Wilson) may explain why Parsons slated the first Brass Eye (reviewed in January 97) by saying "We've seen it all before - none of us are fooled anymore by it".

Important word, "anymore"...

His book's unreadable, incidentally.

Correction on 'Brass Eye' review by Parsons. He actually said it was great when Morris used "celebrities" as a target, not just people on the street. I can check this, but it's buried in a box.

It was certainly an unsupportive review, but he was genuinely oblivious of the Biddly Boddly Wilson incident.

>Correction on 'Brass Eye' review by Parsons. He actually said it was great when Morris used "celebrities" as a target, not just people on the street. I can check this, but it's buried in a box.

Oops! That's one of the best (if occasionally more embarrassing) things about this site - make sure you're accurate, or else someone will pull you up over it. Thanks. I remember now - that *is* what he said.

His book is still awful, though.

"Bowel-shatteringly awful..." as I believe Stephen Fry once said of the Oxford Revue.

Can I make a few more points here. Just a sort of half-time report, having now had a chance to read all this stuff (I'm unemployed at the mo and can't afford expensive cybercafes). This'll be quite long.

All this stuff about SOTCAA making fascistic assumptions about Al Murray's audience is totally off-beam. To illustrate this I shall describe a specific case:

I have a flatmate who is, to all intents and purposes, a nice person. A bit of a grump in the morning, a tendency to laugh far too loudly at the 'comedy bits' in Eastenders, a tad 'middle ground' in her TV choices, but quite adaptable. We get on okay. Her only real character flaw is that she's an absolute and utter raving racist bigot who despises Blacks, Pakis, Chinks, Jews, Gays and pretty much anyone who wasn't born in North London. Having lived with this woman for nigh on three years I've come to understand exactly what makes a bigot's mind works. - In her case it's all completely handed down from her parents whom she (quite proudly) admits were also raving bigots. All opinions are totally second-hand. On those few occasions when she leaves the flat to participate in a social situation and encounters any of the above 'minorities', she usually gets on okay with them, and often seems surprised about this. I certainly don't think of her as 'scum' - just confused / stuck in an inescapable social rut.

She thinks The Pub Landlord is fantastic. She is fully aware that he is 'a character' but still takes his opinions at face value. Sadly, some people really don't even need to differentiate between 'real life' and 'character'. Just to hear their views echoed back at them, in whatever form, is usually enough. I recall her once enthusing for ages about how great Alf Garnett was and, knowing that I'm of a slightly more 'liberal' mind than her, added a sort of disclaimer: 'Yeah, I know he's a bit racist sometimes, but that doesn't matter 'cos he's so funny', she said. She's even watched documentaries in which Warren Mitchell or Johnny Speight have explained their actual targets in no uncertain terms, but it just floats over her like so much nothing.

Her bigotry is basically another evocation of a 'safety in numbers' ethic. If you're surrounded by racism for most of your life then you're only going to feel alienated if you stand up and say 'now hold on...' One thing such people enjoy more than anything (especially in this enlightened age) is to be reminded that their bigoted opinions are correct - a flaw of human behaviour which the tabloid media deliberately plays on. The people who run the tabloids are the real scum. 'Pleb-baiters' if you will.

Al has said, in interviews, that he finds it 'totally bewildering' that anybody could take his character's bigotry seriously. Well maybe the above character deconstruction will give him a few clues. I wonder if you've all perhaps spent a bit too much time discussing The Pub Landlord's comedy-bigotry with nice gushing middle class liberals who all understand the joke and haven't actually met any 'three dimensional' racists. Well, fair enough - they're not necessarily the sort of people you'd *want* to spend time with. But I've spent three years living under the same roof as one and have developed an amazed understanding of the banal creepiness of it. Maybe I should write a sitcom...

Nobody here is suggesting that Al should pander to such people and tone down the 'racism' of the character. I personally think it should be increased, if anything. I'd love to see him ask the audience 'Who reckons the Pakis should be sent back home?' just as an experiment to see how they react. I would hope that they'd all feel very very uncomfortable. The liberal element of the audience will feel threatened because it goes beyond 'what is acceptable' as comedy. The racist element will feel threatened because they'll be put on the spot (most racists are well-aware that their ideas are out of step with social progress and tend to disguise it with the 'oh, it's political correctness gone mad' clich� - an attitude which 'The 11 O'Clock Show' manages to exploit for its own ends with its reliance on boring sub-racism / homophobia / misogyny). Al's just a character who squawks about the Germans and the French (lazy 'acceptable' comedy racism - something which the Mulville, McGrath, Deayton set have been doing for years anyway) and gets a cheap round of applause. There's no real edge to the character. Well performed, great delivery, etc, but the 'social satire' is pretty tame.

But here's the thing that really worries me about TGP. The mighty Murdoch empire is obviously going to market the show to as big an audience as they can. This will surely mean some potentially worrying promo tactics. I noted that Avalon weren't beneath sending Harry Hill along to the Sun offices for a photo opportunity with Gary Bushell a while back (picture of the pair of them grinning together - 'I think Harry Hill is a genius...', says Gary; 'I used to be a doctor y'know...' says Harry). Will TGP be marketed in the same way? Will we see The Pub Landlord surrounded by Page 3 Stunnas, holding up a Twingo Bingo card? Could happen - and I'm sure there'll be plenty of arguments about how they're actually 'playing the media at their own game' as they count all the money.

All arguments about creating comedy *everyone* can enjoy completely crumble around this issue. Bear in mind that Bushell, during the Alf Garnett live series Warren Mitchell did for ITV a few years back, took it upon himself to urge his readers to watch the show, adding that Johnny Speight's views on society had become a bit more Garnett-like in the years leading up to his demise. The subtext is terrifying there - twisting Speight's social satire to give bigotry a seal of approval.

Shortly after the Perrier, Al was immediately being touted by newspapers (who hadn't actually seen his act, obviously) as 'The new Alf Garnett'. I wonder if Bushell will eventually assume that Richard Herring is projecting his own views onto the Landlord. You may find that idea funny. I personally think it's horrible and worrying. I know how many people take Bushell completely at his word, refusing to even question that he may have a hidden agenda. And he's probably the most-read TV columnist in the country. I don't suppose Avalon care about anything other than the latter factor. Hey ho.

TGP isn't 'Till Death Us Do Part' (the latter had a better sig tune for a start. Well, the latter had a sig tune, period). Yes, lots of people missed the point of Garnett. Gary Bushell quite obviously still misses the point of Garnett. There are always going to be people who miss the point of comedy characters and the way they work. And there are always going to be people who miss the point of life and acquire nasty, morally-threatening prejudices which they can't shake off. Unfortunately The Sun and The News Of The World specifically cater for the terminally confused. If they think (rightly or wrongly) that TGP is the show which these people deserve, they'll play up to that. And no amount of chummy, Julie Birchill / Frank Skinner-like wankery about how The Sun is actually the best newspaper ever (and a work of art) will make you look like anything other than sellers of your comedy souls. I think the PR will eventually work against you. I hope not, obviously. But it's something to bear in mind.

On a final note, my flatmate once went off on a tirade against 'them blacks bringing diseases like meningitis and AIDS into the country' (a 'specialist theory' passed onto her by her father who was not, as far as I can discern, an expert in the field of medicine). During all this I pointed out that she still always made a point of watching Lenny Henry whenever he was on TV. Her response was simply 'Well, I don't mind Lenny Henry 'cos he makes me laugh!' So there you have it. Maybe comedy *can* build a bridge over this confused, divided nation after all. If only Enoch had thought of doing a stand-up routine instead of all that dated 'Rivers Of Blood' nonsense (which was just ripped off Adolf Hitler anyway - and much funnier on the radio...)

Yes, yes, yes... but that's what bigotry is, it doesn't see how nasty/ridiculous it is.

Yes, I have met some real-life bigots. But I stick by what I said above: you may as well object to 'Father Ted' for encouraging anti-Catholicism (not a big issue in mainland Britain, but people do kill or get killed for it elsewhere in the world).

I don't have time now for a long answer, I'm sure you want to answer my point, I'll come back to this after work.

Also: Powell didn't rip off Hitler, 'rivers of blood' was a quote from Cicero or some Roman, I forget which.

None of your response avoids the fact that, once again, your 'evidence' is simply an anecdote about your bigot flatmate. Some of your points about TGP may well prove to be correct. The reason why I've never criticized your views on the 11ocs is because that was racist, homophobic and sexist in exactly the 'oh it's PC gone mad' way you describe. But don't assume that everyone who reads the Sun believes everything they read. And don't assume all the 'plebs' are bigots, or that all the middle-class are liberals. In my experience it's frequently the other way round.

Another careless assumption about your forum visitors there. How do you know that none of us don't know any casual racists ? Al's right - universities can "boast" many.

<I have a flatmate who is, to all intents and purposes, a nice person. A bit of a grump in the morning, a tendency to laugh far too loudly at the 'comedy bits' in Eastenders, a tad 'middle ground' in her TV choices, but quite adaptable. We get on okay. Her only real character flaw is that she's an absolute and utter raving racist bigot who despises Blacks, Pakis, Chinks, Jews, Gays and pretty much anyone who wasn't born in North London.


Is she seeing anyone at the moment? Could you pass on my phone number. Does she like Indian food?

The thing about the Second World War is that it was very much of its time - you couldn't really get away with stuff like that now.

The pilot was much better, as I remember. No Hitler.

>The pilot was much better, as I remember. No Hitler.

WWII was in fact a squeal, as it was really a continuation of the FWW. Hitler was temporarily blinded by a gas attack at the end of the FWW. Goring had been a famous fighter ace. Nearly all those who held commands during WWII had fought in the FWW. Churchill had brief period in the army at the Front during the FWW but decided he didn't like it and was moved to Lord of the Admiralty (other men not so keen on the fighting were of course shot as cowards.)

Your history is as bad as Ben Elton's. I remember the Puritans holding crosses in one episode of Blackadder. And as we all know Puritans considered crosses to be iconoclastic (i.e. Popish)

>WWII was in fact a squeal

And the Holocaust was a hoot

>>WWII was in fact a squeal
>
>And the Holocaust was a hoot

Yes. Should have said: "sequel"

Thanks for all your comments. I think you may be right about The Second World War, and I agree it hasn't aged well...especially the haircuts!! But we had a lot of fun doing it.

If we ever do a third world war, we'll probably do something completely different. (For example, I'd like to engage in a proper debate with people, rather than resorting to all that genocide stuff. I think the problem with us Nazis is that we often came over as arrogant.)

Anyway, thanks again for all your kind words. Hope you all continue to enjoy war.

www.adolf.co.uk/oneball

War huh! What is it good for? Absoloutly nothing! etc etc..

Oh I just love this razor-sharp satire! There hasn't been anything like it since Rory Bremner's last series!

I bet there's a brilliant Michael Portillo monologue hidden on this site, full of double-entendres about his past life. Or a hilarious cartoon of William Hague, pointing out that he's not very good!

I like a lot of Rory's stuff. He really takes it to the edge.

He really is a gas, huh, huh.

Chlorine gas?

Okay, we relent, we bow, we suck. Let it be known that from now on we at SOTCAA fully support Time Gentlemen Please and all it stands for. And just to show there are no hard feelings, here are a few plot devices which Rich and Al might like to consider if they're running a bit short towards the end:


'LADIES NIGHT'
The Australian barmaid (Julia Sawalha) organises a Ladies' Night. The Pub Landlord is furious and refuses to let them in. But it turns out that they are all really attractive so he lets them in after all. Then he discovers they're lesbians so he throws them out again. Unfortunately it turns out they are actually the local brewery inspectors in disguise.

'CAMPARI AND SODA'
An exchange visit is implemented between Al's pub and the Duck & Tortoise next door. Unfortinately for Al, the Duck & Tortoise is a gay pub.

'THE SUMMER OF PUB'
Al has realised that theme pubs are all the rage, about eight years ago. So he decides to set one up of his own, with the theme of 'men standing around drinking beer'. (If no one laughs, The Australian Barmaid can say 'So, no change there...') Eventually, they decide on a 60s theme, and organise an impromptu rock concert in the beer garden. Look out for an uncanny appearance by a lookalike playing Paul 'Beatles' McCartney.

'CHANGING THE BARRELS'
The Australian barmaid brings her new boyfriend in. He's a nasty racist bigot and offends everyone. The Pub Landlord however thinks he's found a kindred spirit and gets on well with him, that is until he proclaims that all Pakistanis are bastards and upsets the Australian barmaid too. In a sudden ironic character reversal, Al punches him out cold and gets a big round of applause from the audience. The final scene hints at a possible love scenario between Al and the Australian Barmaid as they lock up the bar. But just as they're about to embrace, Jason Freeman walks in and ruins the moment. Run credits over shots of Al chasing Freeman down the street with a stick.

'OPTIC-AL ILLUSION'
New European regulations on drinks measures come into force, and Al is not happy. Another chance to hear those classic ad libs once again.

'TEAM SPIRIT'
It's the annual inter-pub football championships, and Al is determined to make the victory cup his. There is also a Euro 2000 subplot, with an escalating joke about increasingly huge televisions.

'BLIMEY, THE WIFE'
The Pub Landlord's evil ex-wife (a bravura peformance by Jenny Eclair) pops by to discuss alimony payments or something. She brings along their son who looks and behaves exactly like Phil Daniels' character, suggesting that, at some point in the past, Phil Daniels has had sexual intercourse with her. Al can do some good double-takes here. Eventually Phil Daniels breaks down and confesses that it's all true. Al rips up the alimony cheque, throws his evil wife out and gets a big round of applause from the audience. Phil Daniels looks a bit sheepish and awkward but Al says they'll remain friends because, although blood is thicker than water, lager is thicker than both of them, or something.

'SAME AGAIN PLEASE'
Some rich students (Ben Moor and Julian Barratt), on a backpacking holiday of wherever Time Gentlemen Please is set, visit the bar and try to buy a packet of nuts with a million pound note. Al is annoyed. The rest of the show will write itself. (Note - get Phil Daniels' character to say something derogatory about Blur. This will provoke a knowing laugh from people who enjoy really smug knowing-wink references)
Sub plot: The Australian barmaid tells everyone that all Australian men can suck their own cocks without trying. Each of the male characters keep sneaking off to the toilet throughout the show to see if they can do it, then returning with a defeated expression on their faces. At the end of the show it's revealed that the barmaid has set up a camera in the toilet and now has photos of everyone trying to suck their own cocks. 'Is this a good time to talk about my pay-rise?', she asks Al..

'AND THE LUCKY WINNER IS'
During a visit to Cheddar Gorge, The Pub Landlord has a hair-brained scheme to print off more raffle-tickets than is necessary then pocket the excess money himself. Meanwhile his evil ex-wife is doing a leaflet hate campaign against him and his auntie is having sex even though she's very old. The show ends with a bird flying into someone's windscreen.

'FLY ON THE WALL (OF THE PUB)'
A camera crew arrive to make a docusoap about a typical British pub. The staff get starstruck and prepare for the crew's arrival by dressing up in elaborate costumes and having luvvie tantrums. This all culminates in Al becoming a pop star, and forming an unlikely boy band called The Lager Tops.

'PUB GRUB'
The Pub Landlord organises a gourmet evening but things don't go quite according to plan when some Germans visit and the Australian barmaid's pet rat goes missing. After a bungled fire drill, one of the regular customers dies and some Irish builders make a mess of the wall. To make matters worse, Al then hits his car and sticks his hand in a trifle. The show ends with the real inspectors from the brewery turning up. Doh.

'LET THEM EAT NUTS'
Al gets hit on the head by a falling beer keg and dreams he's an aristocrat during the French Revolution.

'THE BEST MEDICINE'
Al is suffering from irritable bowel syndrome (or piles - funnier?) and visits his doctor who diagnoses inoperable cancer. He decides to spend his remaining days being nice to everyone. Then it turns out that the doctor somehow got Al's lab results mixed up with someone else's and he's going to be fine after all. So now he has to be twice as horrible to all the people he was nice to when he thought he was dying to make up for it. And his bowels never get cured either. And the person who actually had cancer owed him a tenner. And one of the beer barrels explodes showering him with foam. And the inspectors from the brewery arrive.

'LAGER THAN LIFE'
Some Nazis from the second world war turn up and interrogate the regulars. 'Vot is your name, Lant-lord', says a German officer. 'Don't tell him, Al Murray The Pub Landlord', says Jason Freeman. The show ends with everybody too drunk to march to Auschwitz. 'What a stroke of luck!', says Al. 'Luck - weyhey - sounds almost exactly like fu' says special guest star Miriam Margoylis, even though you are actually allowed to say 'fuck' these days.

'NO ROOM AT THE INN'
Christmas special, with a guest appearance by Warren Mitchell as The Ghost of Landlords Past.

'HOGMANAY'
Al Murray's Scottish cousin Al McMurray pays a flying visit to the pub (Al can play both parts with the aid of some nifty CSO effects and a ginger wig). Amusingly his cousin is only bigoted against people from South London and nobody else. The Australian barmaid can do jokes about 'tossing the caber' and 'big hairy sporrans' (in character of course - no cheap laughs or anything. Best tell the audience about this beforehand actually or they might not get it). The show ends with Al covered in porridge.

'THE CIGARETTE MACHINE IS BROKEN'
Self explanatory.

'A VISIT FROM HARRY HILL'
Jason Freeman's character organises a charity evening and hires Harry Hill to present the prizes. Harry turns out to be really dull and boring in real life (in contrast to his zany on-screen persona). Each of the regular characters take it in turns to say 'what are the chances of that happening?' to Harry who grimaces each time (like that Father Ted plot a bit). Then - oh, this is brilliant - The Pub Landlord asks him why he didn't bring his 'Big Brother Alun' along and Hill says 'Oh, he had a thing he had to do' while mugging and winking to the audience. At the end of the episode, Al appears as Hill's brother too and says 'Sorry I'm late!' to the amazement of the audience. Then, both the Pub Landlord and Harry Hill's brother appear in the same shot, turn to camera and pull that face. Class.

'WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE WAR, DADDY' (AKA 'ADOLF HITLER KNEW MY FATHER')
The Old Man character tells everybody a convoluted story about the war which suggests that he is actually the Pub Landlord's natural father. In the end it turns out he's somebody else's father instead.

'AL ALONE'
Due to a sudden snowdrift, Al finds himself without customers or barstaff for the entire show. He spends the whole half-hour pontificating to himself like in that episode of Hancock. We discover that underneath his bluff exterior there beats the innocent golden heart of a man who's frightened by his own mortality. At the end of the show, the door bursts open, all the regulars enter and Al goes back to his old self, obviously.

'IT'S MY ROUND'
The Pub Landlord installs a new lager tank. The lager is called Rancid Monkey Spunk. Al is suspicious.

'YOU CAN'T MURRAY LOVE'
Cupid's arrow strikes the pub - Al is smitten by the new beer inspector (or something), Miss Bell. She dumps him, due to a plot. The end scene features a close-up of Al whispering sweet nothings in a candle-lit restaurant ('You're wonderful, you are - I could never live without you...'), but we pull out to reveal he is actually talking to his pint.

'LAST ORDERS PLEASE'
A huge, loud Yankee Doodle Dandy American in a stetson visits the pub. He just loves the 'Olde Worlde English bar' and offers The Pub Landlord a million dollars to have it taken apart, brick by brick, flown over to California and reassembled next to his enormous swimming pool. To everyone's dismay, Al agrees. The rest of the show has all the characters reminiscing about all the good times they've had (clips from previous episodes). But in the end, just as the bulldozers are moving in, The Pub Landlord rips up the cheque, throws the fragments in the American's face and gets a big round of applause from the audience.

Tut tut corpses, no-one falling through a bar?


In the absence of such a high quality comic moment, how can you expect these ideas to be taken seriously?

I do hope that one of these episodes will feature a group of twentysomethings reminiscing loudly but vaguely in a corner about old television programmes.

Cheerio

Steve

No, it'll feature a pair of coffins in the corner, from which voices can be heard murmuring about the Cluub Z pilot show.

That will get knowing laughs from 2 people in the audience.

I love you Jon.

Oh go and wank over your Russell Peters poster collection... you will anyway...

Was that rejection or a request?

I was in the National Gallery when a bloke next to me, studying a nude, commented: "Corr, lookit the norks on that! Wouldn't mind givin' 'er one in a dark alleyway".

I was appalled that something masquerading as "art" prompted such an unacceptable statement. I think artists need to realise that these paintings only go to encourage predatory sexual behaviour in men; after all, there are certain members of the public who don't get 'art' and as such these 'artists' need to stick to subjects not likely to provoke/encourage such a reaction. Fruit, melted clocks, decomposing sheep, that sort of thing.
My flatmate has lots of pictures of naked women, so I should know.

Re: original posting
Please don't start a sentance with a preposition. Doing so is just not grammatically acceptable.

>Re: original posting
>Please don't start a sentance with a preposition. Doing so is just not grammatically acceptable.
>

huh? The original posting starts with the word "we"...

"Please don't start a sentance with a preposition. Doing so is just not grammatically
acceptable."

And spelling errors are? Curiouser and curiouser.

There is actually nothing wrong with starting a sentence with a preposition. But don't tell anyone I said so.

I should point out that Al is an English teacher. So he's the last person who'd know one way or the other.