I'm Alan Partridge (much better than the chat show spoof)
Harry Hill (live stand-up, TV show was a bit hit and miss but had some gems in it)
Blue Jam
Bottom (much funnier than the Young Ones. Not "important" or ground-breaking or other NME-friendly measures of worth. If it makes you laugh, it's funny, right?)

And the All Time Number 1:

The Golden Age of The Simpsons, probably 1992-1998ish.

Reeves and Mortimer (still more likely to make me laugh out loud than almost anyone else ever and I can't explain why)

The rise of the comedy actor class (Mark Heap, Kevin Eldon, Steve Coogan, John Thompson, Rebecca Front, Armstrong & Miller, Paul Whitehouse when on form, etc). Remember the shock of really good actors suddenly doing comedy? So you couldn't tell who was the funny man / straight man in sketches until someone did something ludicrous? So you could still be surprised and caught off guard. I watched The Day Today, for example, in total awe of the actors, stunned that comedy could do this. That's a development I'd really have missed.

>Reeves and Mortimer

Curse me for forgetting them. The 'red' and 'blue' videos are of rescue-from-burning-building goodness.

>Hey everyone. What things do you like now
>that you perhaps didn't ten years ago?

Sex with women.

>In fact, let's just stick with the comedy
>side of it. If you'd died in 1991, who
>would you have hated to have missed?

Well, that I was 13 in '91 and rather ill-informed, I'd have missed a good deal of old stuff. So, rather, I'll spin the question and ask myself, if the world had stopped in '91, which new comedies and comedians would I have hated to have missed.

And I answer myself (thinking of stuff that seems to be only or mainly post-'91), purely off the top of my head with things that I really like:

Eddie Izzard, Lee and Herring, Mark Thomas, Chris Morris, 'Absolutely Fabulous', 'The Simpsons', 'South Park', 'League of Gentlemen' (oh shut up). There are more.

Of course, I don't believe comedy is much worse (or better) today than it has ever been. There are lots of crap things, and I believe these should be railed against - but there have always been crap things (if there's been a shift then, as with that comedy audience thing, it's been from old fogeys being comissioned because they're bankable names, regardless of the quality of their work [Marks and Gran leap to mind - some great series, some dire ones, but they always got given the job], to young trendy wankers being comissioned because they're bankable faces/demographics, regardless of the quality of their work).

British TV drama and factual programming are my bugbears. Been in decline since '87, only now showing he faintest signs of new life and, by all appearances, it's a bit too late to save either of them.

>Of course, I don't believe comedy is much worse (or better) today than it has ever been.

I think the examples you quoted show that things haven't been in decline for the past 10 years.
However, my impression is that we have been going through a comedy "dry patch" in the last couple of years. The only new shows that I have really, really wanted to watch after first viewing have been Black Books and Futurama (and Brass Eye Special, but that doesn't really count).

However you perceive the state of comedy right now (and I'm finding plenty to make me giggle) the current "drought" is nowhere near as ghastly as the comedy dry spell preceding the arrival of Vic and Bob.

That's why we all laud Absolutely so highly. It was out there on its own. The only silly programme in a schedule empty of laughter bar the odd worthy, unfunny "topical comedy".

>That's why we all laud Absolutely so highly. It was out there on its own. The only silly programme in a schedule empty of laughter bar the odd worthy, unfunny "topical comedy".

So things were actually much worse ten years ago? I'm too young, you see, but I'm led to believe that such a statement is heresy round here (or at least that was the impression I got from the dull E4 thread above)

Of course there have been good shows in the last ten years, and of course there were crap shows ten years ago. Steve is being a bit naughty here by subtly trying to imply (what some already believe) that the arguments on this site can all be safely dismissed as 'Things ain't wot they used to be'. That is not the case, at least not as crudely as that. British TV has changed systematically. All of it, even non-commercial channels like the BBC, has become more commercially orientated. Turgid docu-soaps, reality TV, and cheap interior decor/cookery schedule fillers proliferate. TV execs are engaged in trying to get reasonable audiences for very little outlay, instead of prioritising innovative and imaginative television.

Drama, as Gregg says, is a very good example. Decent dramas on TV in the last five years? Holding On. Queer as Folk. Births, Marriages and Deaths. The Crow Road. And In a Land of Plenty was OK. That's it. Five in five years. A dreadful state of affairs. (I would however, make a case for factual programming. The few things I have made sure I didn't miss on TV recently were documentary serials - the BBC's 'The Planets' and 'Total War'(? - follow up to 'The Nazis - A Warning From History') for example. And C4's Secret History of Hacking the other night was very good. Increasingly, I scan the schedules for documentaries - they seem to be the only programmes that are still allowed to take risks.)

This thread has to reach double figures before someone mentions Father Ted?

>British TV has changed systematically. All
>of it, even non-commercial channels like
>the BBC, has become more commercially
>orientated.

That's absolutely true.

>Turgid docu-soaps, reality TV, and cheap
>interior decor/cookery schedule fillers
>proliferate. TV execs are engaged in
>trying to get reasonable audiences for very
>little outlay, instead of prioritising
>innovative and imaginative television.

Indeed. The shift has been, for the past ten to fifteen years as far as I can gather, towards safe, non-threatening, un-inspiring television. The best thing that sums it up - and shows how long it's been going on - is that Potter lecture from '92, where he talks about the BBC, at the time of his childhood, as something that would shock its audience with innovative, imaginative, unusual programs. There would be standard, plebian fare, of course, but in between that would be high-brow, artisitc, aspirational television (and radio). These days, there are demographics, formats, checklists. TV is made for a specific audience in line with conventional percpetions and beliefs that are, at best, grotesque generalisations. It is, by and large, no longer made as an excercise in making good television, but in selling a product. And this hurts most with regard to the BBC - I like C4, by and large (some crap, but alo some of the best stuff of the past ten years, and some of the best imports, too) - and I couldn't really give a fuck about ITV. And while all of this is going on, while TV is becoming increasingly commercialised, audiences are falling. The perception is that TV has dumbed-down, embraced culturally fall-out and Thatcherism, to try and win back these audiences. I tend to think if it just concentrated on making the best dramas and comedies it could, and investing money rather than making cheap, mass-appeal pap, it actually would win those audiences back. (Of course, the best way to get high ratings is to screen state funerals - so if terrestrial channels really want to get the viewers back, they just need to arrange a few high-profile deaths, and they'll be laughing.)

>Drama, as Gregg says, is a very good
>example. Decent dramas on TV in the last
>five years? Holding On. Queer as Folk.
>Births, Marriages and Deaths. The Crow
>Road. And In a Land of Plenty was OK.
>That's it. Five in five years. A dreadful
>state of affairs.

By and large, yes. Though I enjoyed... that thing... can't remember the name. From the makers of 'QaF', set in a textiles factory. That had the one-act thing going, and used the format to do things that were more experimental, interesting, dramatic and entertaining than most. Also, despite the fantastical premise for the murderer, 'Messiah' was solid entertainment with wonderful scope. That's what's been missing for so long - scope, ambition, breadth and depth of percpetion. Everything has shifted towards little personal sotries of family woe and job troubles, none of the verities, no grandeur or penetration, nothing on the essential human condition or the drama of extremes and the unusual, just dull little annoyances of everyday life (which is why something like 'The Sopranoes' or 'The West Wing'; comes along and gets millions of people into an instant state of orgasm).

>(I would however, make a case for factual
>programming. The few things I have made
>sure I didn't miss on TV recently were
>documentary serials - the BBC's 'The
>Planets' and 'Total War'(? - follow up
>to 'The Nazis - A Warning From History')
>for example. And C4's Secret History of
>Hacking the other night was very good.
>Increasingly, I scan the schedules for
>documentaries - they seem to be the only
>programmes that are still allowed to take
>risks.)

OK, yes, I was wrong there - I meant "current affairs" rather than "factual". Documentaries about history, science, literature, etc., are all still done well (perhaps, even, done better than they used to be - though the repeat run of the old series on WW2, with Olivier narrating, was fascinating). The one C4 showed last week, about the conflict in Asia during WW2, was exceptionally good.

But I'd single-out current affairs for a good kicking. Takle the John Pilger one last week - squirrelled away in a late-night slot of little interest, when it should have been prime-time. And the state of current affairs coverage is a bugbear because I know it was in reaction to several damning documentaries in '86 that Thatcher clamped down on the Beeb and started the commercialisation ball rolling (specifically, the brief for recruiting a DG went from looking for a professional, experienced programming-maker, to looking for an accountant).

Gregg - there is so much in your last posting that I agree with. <doffs virtual hat> I no this kind of back-slapping can be a bit crawly, but bravo, sir.

(Would have been happier if Pilger had made a docu apologising to the Kosovan muslims for saying that they had only pretended to be massacred by the Serbs, but hey ho... I guess Indonesia is his field.)

This is so true it should be posted again. Preferably on the side of a huge articulated lorry and driven up and down outside BBC TV Centre and C4's offices:

>That's what's been missing for so long - scope, ambition, breadth and depth of percpetion. Everything has shifted towards little personal sotries of family woe and job troubles, none of the verities, no grandeur or penetration, nothing on the essential human condition or the drama of extremes and the unusual, just dull little annoyances of everyday life

TV DID used to be better. In a very real, social, economic and political sense. It DID.

You don't think the explanation is simply that those kind of things have more impact on a fourteen year old, the first time around?

>Steve is being a bit naughty here by subtly trying to imply (what some already believe) that the arguments on this site can all be safely dismissed as 'Things ain't wot they used to be'.

Actually, I was just hoping for a bit of positivity.

Cheerio

Right, so can we please now say that, with the exception of drama and non-social documentary making, things are either roughly the same or better than they were ten years ago?

This is a comedy site, (and this thread was started to discuss comedy) and you'd think, from the way people go on that ten or twenty years ago we were up to our necks in quality comedy, aimed at the mind and made by demi gods who bestrode the earth, making us laugh with no regard for ratings or demographics.

This is just not true, but an image that keeps getting trotted out (on that tedious C4 thread for a start). (Oh, and before someone jumps down my throat, the issue that thread is trying to discuss is NOT tedious, just the petty personal point scoring and pompous gainsaying that's developed on there).

The main source of concern for the state of TV (in less articulate rants than Gregg's one above) seems to stem from the increasing reliance on cheap filler (docusoaps, reality shows) in the schedules. This is a recent development, and annoys a lot of people so much that they can't see straight, but it distracts from the quality programming that slips in between. What people are complaining about when they whine about Docusoap / Reality TV is less that certain types of programme have disappeared, but more that a new, low brow sort of programme has appeared.

Using one of those old schedules that annoy people so much, someone with access to a pile of old Radio Timeses would easily be able to prove that where there is now a docusoap on Lollipop men, there used to be twice as many excruciating gameshows. Where there is now Jamie Oliver, there probably used to be a patronising, patrician woman in a floral print dress ordering you about in a studio kitchen. Where there is now Lawrence Llewellyn Bowen, there was once a bloke from Wigan telling you about dowelling very slowly.

The presentation might grate in these modern schedule-fillers, but they're fulfilling roughly the same role as cheap and cheery TV has always done - padding things out and dragging in as many viewers as possible for as little outlay as possible. Just because you avoided watching these sort of programmes when you were younger, and now (driven by a concern for the state of TV) you notice them every time they crop up, it doesn't mean TV hasn't always had its share of tedious crap.

Anyway, the real issue is that, rather than turning into a bunch of wailing Casandaras, predicting the inevitable decline of all television, can we just admit that it is in ceratin specific areas that there has been a fall in standards (drama, current affairs)? That's a practical place to start. Then ask why, and how can it change and think about it rationally.

Specifically: Comedy is not in as bad a state as all that.

In recent postings from the old guard of the forum, I've been reminded of the original rationale of this site, and the elements of it with which I was uncomfortable when I first turned up. The insistence that comedy is dead, while a terrific starting point for a good barney, and a lovely reason to preserve rare material, has always been a shaky assertion in my mind, born of a rose tinted view of the past in denial of any appreciation of current or future comedy. It can't help but come over as bitter and negative and futile. The arguments against "actorly" comedy or FRV, for instance, spring from an arbitrary set of rules on what comedy should and shouldn't be - as ludicrous as insisting on classical unities in drama - rooted in childhood memories of what we used to like.

The examples that have turned up on this thread so far (and there are more to come, I'm sure) show that, while Drama and Current Affairs are certainly in a parlous state, and one worth bemoaning, comedy is turning out about as many little gems every couple of years as it has always done. These shows are already becoming as precious in our memories as Python, RWT, Absolutely, The Comic Strip and The Goodies. With the benefit of videos and rewatching over time, they'll become even more so, and evolve into benchmarks for the next generation of comedy.

So, can we become clear about what it is we're whining about in this constant insistence that everything was better ten years ago it was it was? The grinding insistence that everything is just awful is really getting on my wick.

>Actually, I was just hoping for a bit of positivity.

Why? People say how they feel - why do we need engineered optimism?

>>Actually, I was just hoping for a bit of positivity.
>
>Why? People say how they feel - why do we need engineered optimism?

I'm not asking for engineered optimism. I started a thread asking if people could think of things that have got better in the last ten years. If they can't then they won't post. Why do you have a problem with that?

I, personally, would like to read some positive comments, after having spent a great deal of last night reading negative ones. So I started a thread.

Clearly that displeases the hosts of this forum.

The difference is that Justin started the C4 thread for a reason - because he had specific arguments and grievances. He wasn't being negative for the sake of a feel good (or feel bad) factor, which seems to be the point of this thread.

If people think something is worth applauding, they will say so of their own accord. And they do. However, most of the stuff they applaud seems to be over ten years old. Funny that.

King of the Forum, Unruly Butler:

>In recent postings from the old guard of the forum, I've been reminded of the original rationale of this site, and the elements of it with which I was uncomfortable when I first turned up. The insistence that comedy is dead, while a terrific starting point for a good barney, and a lovely reason to preserve rare material,

Completely true and valid. There are other benefits - it helps to shave away the shallow reasons for enjoying something, such as it looking nice or being 'cool'.

>has always been a shaky assertion in my mind, born of a rose tinted view of the past in denial of any appreciation of current or future comedy. It can't help but come over as bitter and negative and futile. The arguments against "actorly" comedy or FRV, for instance, spring from an arbitrary set of rules on what comedy should and shouldn't be - as ludicrous as insisting on classical unities in drama - rooted in childhood memories of what we used to like.

This is, for me, the crucial problem with nostalgia. It fails to recognise that the individual viewer has changed, and in the case of most of the people on this forum � left their teens. The novelty of watching original or 'dangerous' comedy (such as the Young Ones) as a child can never be recaptured as an adult when watching something new. Memories associated with viewing something like Monty Python for the first time will infuse the constant replays. Older people tend to be more jaded and have a more fixed idea of 'what they like'.

Conversely, has nobody's tastes in comedy moved on in the last 10 years? You can put old music tastes down as youthful folly � surely the same can be said of some comedy? Ossified positions and an ossified sense of humour?

Failure to recognise that the viewer has changed is as blinkered as pretending TV has not changed at all.

When this forum is good, it is very very good. But when it is bad� ooh� it's horrid.

>If people think something is worth applauding, they will say so of their own accord. And they do. However, most of the stuff they applaud seems to be over ten years old. Funny that.

Ah, but not as funny as it used to be.

Oops, glib again. Bad Steve.

T'ra

Memories may lie, but videos do not.

I hate the idea that comedy has to be 'fresh' and 'relevant' to 2001. Comedy improves with age, as far as I'm concerned. It's a snapshot of the time it was created. I mean, I've never understood what people mean by the word 'dated'. If you watch The Young Ones with an awareness of the climate in which it was produced (which isn't difficult - ask an adult) it never dates.

>Memories may lie, but videos do not.

Wholeheartedly in agreement here.

>I hate the idea that comedy has to be 'fresh' and 'relevant' to 2001.

>It's a snapshot of the time it was created.

Is that not why it should be fresh and relevant to the era in which it was produced?

>I mean, I've never understood what people mean by the word 'dated'.

I think techniques date; production and presentation techniques particularly. I assume you mean "dated" when used in the sense of "betrays the age of". I think that's a legitimate claim. I understand it when watching 'It's A Knockout'. I imagine the SOTCAA of the future would understand it in relation to 'Spaced'.

>If you watch The Young Ones with an awareness of the climate in which it was produced (which isn't difficult - ask an adult) it never dates.

Content thereof, perhaps not, but see above.

T'ra

>Memories may lie, but videos do not.

I'm not talking about memories 'lying'. I'm referring the the associations that particular programmes elicit. Watching a video of something 10 years old will necessarily have associations with previous viewings, including the first. This will include emotional factors - which will be largely positive.

>I hate the idea that comedy has to be 'fresh' and 'relevant' to 2001.

So do I. There's nothing more painful to watch than desperate attempts to be 'now'.

You're a big fan of 'The Mary Whitehouse Experience' aren't you? That was desperate to be seen as 'relevant and cool'. How does that square with your opinion? Serious question.

>I mean, I've never understood what people mean by the word 'dated'.

Bad use - it looks like the olden days and the jokes are all about people that aren't famous any more.

Better use - the style has been so over-used or improved upon in subsequent shows that it no longer has the appeal that it originally did. It has become cliche.

Good use - there probably isn't one.

>If you watch The Young Ones with an awareness of the climate in which it was produced (which isn't difficult - ask an adult) it never dates.

True. I do the same when I read a novel. But most people won't do that - they watch TV as a means to relax and be entertained. A decent primer on early 80s politics, pop culture and humour before each series would be fantastic, but would probably not be very popular.

I was more concerned with the sense of humour, rather than the content or context of it - the laboured puns in Shakespeare are rarely considered genuinely funny by people in 2001. The 'aadvark' humour of Douglas Adams will go the same way eventually, as will Chris Morris and so on. Some humour 'dates', some doesn't (e.g. 'Three Men In A Boat').

It's quite hard to articulate this point, and I'm not sure that I'm really succeeding. Hopefully someone else who *does* understand it can make it clearer?

But you know 'It's a Knockout' was a 70s show, so what's the problem? It's not like you're going to get confused.

Fact: I was initially attracted to Monty Python's Flying Circus *because* it looked 'dated' (eerie early 70s look/production values etc). It seemed to add another layer of comedy.

>But you know 'It's a Knockout' was a 70s show, so what's the problem? It's not like you're going to get confused.

No problem. In fact, I hadn't realised that I'd interjected into someone else's point (Jessica's) without reading it first (must've skipped a post), so apologies if what I wrote sounded like non-sequitur. But I don't think the concept of "dated" is too hard to grasp and that's really what I was trying to say.

>Fact: I was initially attracted to Monty Python's Flying Circus *because* it looked 'dated' (eerie early 70s look/production values etc). It seemed to add another layer of comedy.

I get a similar feeling with repeated '70s historical dramas (of the Sunday Serial variety). The fact that they clearly belong in another time (betrayed by the producton techniques and theatrical traditions still present in the acting) makes them seem *more* like they are a product of the time they are set in. (I'm talking about the sort of stuff I would have watched on first repeat in the '80s, say.)

'I Claudius' was an exception, incidentally. To get back on topic (slight return), I think that this would receive better production nowadays.

(Awaiting backlash)

T'ra

>You're a big fan of 'The Mary Whitehouse Experience' aren't you? That was desperate to be seen as 'relevant and cool'. How does that square with your opinion? Serious question.

Well, the TV version was a bit. It was the radio original I really rate. But I don't have a problem with it being relevant and cool as a new show; I just don't like the the assumption that all old shows are automatically irrelevant and uncool becvause the graphics look slightly different.

>True. I do the same when I read a novel. But most people won't do that - they watch TV as a means to relax and be entertained. A decent primer on early 80s politics, pop culture and humour before each series would be fantastic, but would probably not be very popular.

That sums up the industry attitude completely. 'They won't understand'. They won't understand context. They won't understand a visual joke on the radio. They won't understand a 'topical' joke from any given time before 1997. They won't understand the difference between a heavy-handed satire on racism and "poison"...'

'So let's stick all television in a blender and reduce it to babyfood that *everyone* can enjoy'. Except it hasn't occured to them that some of us find this attitude deeply insulting, patronising and infuriating.

Though not nearly as infuriating as industry people who are seemingly too dense to understand this, who wander around placating the annoyed with 'Oh, well of course the situation is like it is - don't you understand? Let's all be positive...'

>'I Claudius' was an exception, incidentally. To get back on topic (slight return), I think that this would receive better production nowadays

What irks about the original? Wouldn't a modern production be much the same, only all cold and cinematic and dark and on field-removed?

>>You're a big fan of 'The Mary Whitehouse Experience' aren't you? That was desperate to be seen as 'relevant and cool'

>Well, the TV version was a bit. It was the radio original I really rate.

I remember now. The radio version wasn't completely immune from trying to be trendy, but that was probably a symptom of the slightly awkward (but extremely fruitful) relationship that R1 had with broadcasting comedy.

>But I don't have a problem with it being relevant and cool as a new show; I just don't like the the assumption that all old shows are automatically irrelevant and uncool becvause the graphics look slightly different.

You're completely right, of course. It's the flip-side of the 'all old shows are unintentionally hilarious and should be dug up to laugh *at*' Maconie opinion.

If Punt and Dennis were funny on the radio then I should start listening to more radio. I found them embarrasingly shit on TV. The highlight of their contributions being a man smelling milk. Actually, that made me chuckle thinking about it.

Radio MWE always sounded lovely and old fashioned to me - those ISIRTAesque ensemble sketches at the close of each show, etc. Only the acid house theme tune was vaguely 'cool' in a superficial sense, and it was great anyway. It was mostly 'now' simply because of its attitude - genuinely original and shocking and hilarious without ever contriving to be so.

>>True. I do the same when I read a novel. But most people won't do that - they watch TV as a means to relax and be entertained. A decent primer on early 80s politics, pop culture and humour before each series would be fantastic, but would probably not be very popular.
>
>That sums up the industry attitude completely.

Maybe it does. I was basing it on ratings - something that you can quantify and I spent a fair part of my job utilising.

>'They won't understand'.

I didn't say that. I said that it probably wouldn't be popular. People *would* understand and they *may* even flock to it. But it is very unlikely. Not *right* - unlikely

>Though not nearly as infuriating as industry people who are seemingly too dense to understand this, who wander around placating the annoyed with 'Oh, well of course the situation is like it is - don't you understand? Let's all be positive...'

Steve wasn't doing that - if he was he wouldn't bother with this forum, because it could never be placated, whatever happened TV.

His cry for positivity was perfectly valid - the best Corpses articles are the ones where you unreservedly enthuse about something. Is it so terrible if people want to enthuse about something recent.

Unfold your arms and roll your bottom lip up, folks. The constructive criticism on this forum is largely fantastic. So is the praise. When they balance each other out the whole forum seems more rounded and the negative is highlighted by the positive.

>If Punt and Dennis were funny on the radio then I should start listening to more radio.

You'll need a time machine, matey. It's all Nev Fountain around these parts now.

>What irks about the original?

That it was studio-based and shot on video. I think it looks cheap for such an epic story. For want of a better word. Can't fault the casting, mind.

>Wouldn't a modern production be much the same, only all cold and cinematic and dark and on field-removed?

I think FRV also looks cheap. I think that "cold" and "dark" are pretty good adjectives to apply to 'I...', but it isn't something I (personally) would write in a treatment. I'd prefer it to get the sort of production values that, say, 'The West Wing' gets. Or, if we're looking at British stuff, 'Cold Feet'.

However, it'd probably get the same sort of treatment as the Beeb's 'Victoria & Albert'. Made about a year ago for BBC ONE's centenary commemoration of Victoria's death, and still on the shelf. There y'go. There's something I'd like to see.

Cheerio

The idea of 'negative' and 'positive' comments is meaningless; they are two sides of the same coin. If you complain about something, you are saying 'why can't we have something good instead?', which is - in its own way - positive. It means you're looking up at the stars rather than saying how innovative the gutter is.

>The idea of 'negative' and 'positive' comments is meaningless; they are two sides of the same coin. If you complain about something, you are saying 'why can't we have something good instead?', which is - in its own way - positive. It means you're looking up at the stars rather than saying how innovative the gutter is.

Unfortunately, there will always be some poor bastard in the sewer below praising the gutter in which you sit.
Let's face it, being bombarded with shit TV makes us all feel superior to the masses. That's not to say that I don't enjoy spitting my furious bile at the idiots who watch it.

>The idea of 'negative' and 'positive' comments is meaningless;

How about 'rational' and 'irrational'? How about the difference between discussions based on 'faith' and 'reason'? How about the difference between 'engaging in lively, constructive discussion' and 'calling people smug, dense, thick, glib, idiotic, a model of mediocrity, egotistical and deceitful amongst others'?

Any use?

>The idea of 'negative' and 'positive' comments is meaningless; they are two sides of the same coin.

Of course they are. Did you need an English degree to work that out?

>If you complain about something, you are saying 'why can't we have something good instead?',

I can see your point, but it's not always the case. My problem is as much the tone as the actual intent. The unrelenting pessimism peddled on here by some contributors contains very little positive sentiment and is extremely defeatist. Not to mention wearing... it can be very hard to read anything that is unflinchingly full of hatred for its subject matter. That's why TVGH is so boring.

>That's why TVGH is so boring.

Whoops! Controversial viewpoint alert!

>How about 'rational' and 'irrational'? How about the difference between discussions based on 'faith' and 'reason'? How about the difference between 'engaging in lively, constructive discussion' and 'calling people smug, dense, thick, glib, idiotic, a model of mediocrity, egotistical and deceitful amongst others'?
>
>Any use?

That's very Christian of you, but what about when people *are* all of those things. Are we allowed to call thick people thick without becoming irrational?

>That's very Christian of you, but what about when people *are* all of those things. Are we allowed to call thick people thick without becoming irrational?

The pairs/antonyms were intended to be mutually exclusive. I wasn't implying that irrational people use words like "fuckwit" and vice-versa.

If you feel strongly that I represent all of those pejorative terms (they are all ones that have been used to describe me on this forum), then feel free to go ahead and say so, but don't expect me to accept it (or to accept that it's conducive to a lively, constructive discussion).

T'ra

Good. As long as I can say 'Fuckwit' without being seen as irrational, I'm pretty much in support of your argument. I won't say it to Mother.

>I hate the idea that comedy has to be 'fresh' and 'relevant' to 2001. Comedy improves with age, as far as I'm concerned. It's a snapshot of the time it was created. I mean, I've never understood what people mean by the word 'dated'. If you watch The Young Ones with an awareness of the climate in which it was produced (which isn't difficult - ask an adult) it never dates.

One or two bits date in obvious ways - trying to explain to my dad why "I'm Paul Squires" was a funny line was a bit hard, when he saw Summer Holiday for the first time two weeks ago - and social things like the scene in the bank - my naive ickle friend that I expose to these videos genuinely doesn't remember a time when banks weren't shiny, open at reasonable hours and uni-queued.

But I don't think you even need an awareness of the time to come fresh to The Young Ones and find it funny. My dad asked me why on earth he hadn't watched it before, when he saw it on UK Gold (and borrowed the videos from me a day later). All I could do was point out the irony of the situation - that he had implicitly (via my mum) banned me from watching it in 1982/4 and so I'd watched it elsewhere. If I'd watched it at home he'd have seen it and appreciated it years ago, instead of discovering it at the age of 53...

>>That's why TVGH is so boring.
>
>Whoops! Controversial viewpoint alert!

That's right. And the same goes for Christmas!

Get her!

I'm having a good debate today with Mike and co. Much better than working.

>>If Punt and Dennis were funny on the radio then I should start listening to more radio.
>
>You'll need a time machine, matey. It's all Nev Fountain around these parts now.
>



Nev's never written a word of The Now Show (P&D's R4 show)... it's all written by the performers.

We now have Channel 5 which provides an ample diet of late night Brit-tit-flicks (gut-aching for the clothes and hairstyles alone) starring Tone's Father-in-law and sometimes shows B&W British comedy films of an afternoon.

Father Ted.

Goodness Gracious Me on the Wireless Machine.

Gogs.

David Icke.

>So, can we become clear about what it is we're whining about in this constant insistence that everything was better ten years ago it was it was? The grinding insistence that everything is just awful is really getting on my wick.

Thing is, there's a difference between saying "TV has got worse and will continue to do so without some major changes" as I think many here are implying and "everything is awful. 1990 was a wondeful year you know..."

There HAVE been major institutional changes at C4, and particularly the BBC, which have led to more crap telly, and less risk taking. That is the case. It does not mean no good shows ever get made. It does not mean crap shows were never made in the past (sometimes the risks went wrong, for instance). None of this invalidates the key point in this debate. There is something badly wrong with British television.

Fair play, but there's also a difference between hating the management culture of television and hating the programmes it produces. I think people confuse the two.

I know that major institutional changes to organisations like the BBC and C4 have fucked things up royally - Birt's remodelling of White City as a non-creative environment is ludicrous for instance. On the other hand I still enjoy a lot of the output. After all, no-one sacked all the writers, comedians and actors in the world and replaced them with men in suits. The chances of a comedy programme on TV being produced by someone brilliant and funny are still much the same. Sod the backroom boys, it's still the creatives who make the show funny or not.

I think that knowing about the internal wrangling behind programmes sours many forumgoers enjoyment of them (I was bemused by Mike's conviction that Big Train was written by a focus group on how to be surreal rather than two silly men). There's always been messy producer politics going on behind your favourite shows, you just didn't necessarily follow it as a twelve year old when you were first wallowing in Happy Families or The Groovy Fellers or whatever.

I'm sure that, say, the patrician, staid attitude of certain sectors of the 1960s BBC ("Four buggers for one bloody") was as irritating to creatives such as Johnny Speight as the demographic-led ratings chasing of Channel 4 these days might be to modern programme makers.

I acknowledge that we should all be concerned for the creative health of television stations, but that concern shouldn't make us ignore any quality product that does slip through. I do honestly think that the toughest critics of current TV politics on this forum sometimes allow their despair at the way TV is run to spoil their enjoyment of the odd great show. "It can't be good. It's on that channel that's not run like it used to be."

This is akin to a die hard socialist thinking that milk tastes different when it's not delivered by a co-operative dairy.

Which all sounds fair - and, as I've said, in terms of comedy I think the output is roughly the same as it always was (a few hits and lots of misses), in drama things have been increasingly short-sghted, unimaginative and trivial for at least a decade, while it's really current affairs that has suffered since Thatcher.

But the management/accountant (over creatives) culture has permeated the programs themselves and does affect comissioning. Often to a great degree. Certain programs - and certain types of programs - just don't get comissioned, at a time when there's more space to comission such shows than there has ever been. Managers interfer, dumb-down, require changes to things in order to satisfy some fantastical demogrpahic or other. And it's all so wrong.

The other thing - and perhaps the main thrust of this sight - is that perceptions have changed. What might once have been viewed as fairly safe and low-brow is hyped as daring, cutting-edge and special. There's a paucity of imagination and expectation. In terms of TV, the last decade has produced some great things. But, on the whole, things seem to have got progressively less imaginative, stylish, interesting, impressive. Quality has been replaced, largely, by quantity and LCD concerns, TV is driven by the wrong things. There are all these new channels, none of which I'm remotely interested in (except FilmFour, and it hardly seems worth subscribing to digital just for that), while the four main channels aren't as compelling as they used to be. I have little incentive to watch most of what's on TV, and when I do I find myself quickly losing interest and reaching for the nearest video. And most of my videos are pre-87.

And that's equating my personal taste with good quality. Which is just and righteous.

And milk *is* better if it comes from a co-op dairy. It is.

>And milk *is* better if it comes from a co-op dairy. It is.

Not round my way.

>>And milk *is* better if it comes from a co-
>>op dairy. It is.
>
>Not round my way.

You're lucky. We don't have any co-op dairies round our way anymore. The last closed down a few months back. You know, I once went on a school trip to that dairy. My six-yr-old self was fascinated - it was even better than the chicken farm. I nearly became a milko. Course, if I had, I'd be out of a job now - thanks to the new management culture.

Milk production did used to be better. It did.

Sorry.

>I acknowledge that we should all be concerned for the creative health of television stations, but that concern shouldn't make us ignore any quality product that does slip through. I do honestly think that the toughest critics of current TV politics on this forum sometimes allow their despair at the way TV is run to spoil their enjoyment of the odd great show. "It can't be good. It's on that channel that's not run like it used to be."

Believe it or not, I made an extremely similar criticism of this site in a conversation with Justin.

I did have a few reservations about what you said, but Gregg has posited all of them in a far more articulate manner. Having read about the processes behind Hitch-Hikers on R4, or Python, I still think current TV producers are less likely to take risks on new shows, but I concede, of course, that some excellent new shows are being made.
>This is akin to a die hard socialist thinking that milk tastes different when it's not delivered by a co-operative dairy.

I wasn't trying to argue that there was nothing wrong with TV, really. Only a cretin would do that. It's just that this site (and it does it every so often) is really getting on my nerves at the moment. The "It all used to be better IT DID" argument keeps poking at me with pointed sticks, goading me to devil's advocate fury.

Gregg's and Al's points were all valid and I think, if you carefully combined them with some of the contrary ones, we might be able to build a constructive opinion on the state of Tv that wasn't just shouting and throwing toys out of prams.

Oh, and can I point out that, drama-wise, "Clocking Off" was astonishing?

What I'd REALLY love to say is that it was distinctly average. But having nothing else to compare it with over the last decade, I can't. It stands alone as a collosus of recent programming. I wish it didn't.

TV Drama stinks. And we know why. And it is to do with changes in corporate structure. And that IS something to worry about.

>Oh, and can I point out that, drama-
>wise, "Clocking Off" was astonishing?

Indeed it was - for the most part. But how long has it been since something like that was transmitted in prime-time? And where's the continuation? It was, I believe, over a year between seasons on that one - and the seasons are damn short.

>What I'd REALLY love to say is that it was
>distinctly average.

So would I. Sadly, given the dearth of other material, I can't. As Al said in (I think) another thread, there have been as many good dramas in the past five years as there should really have been in the past year. And when there were such things as Screen One and Two, these good dramas were much more prevalent, much more findable, much more there. It's like what used to be basic threshold for good drama is now a rare, precious, amazing thing. Which means most stuff is dodgy, and we get nothing truly great and wonderous.

>But having nothing else to compare it with
>over the last decade, I can't. It stands
>alone as a collosus of recent programming.

Relatively alone. Al listed a few more.

>I wish it didn't.
>
>TV Drama stinks. And we know why. And it
>is to do with changes in corporate
>structure. And that IS something to worry
>about.

Exactly.