Discuss with reference to SOTCAA Dogma in no more than 600 posts.

I thought it was good - especially the river dance line, and Herr Lipp's shadow as he went up the stairs. It's only as bit of silliness for goodness sake - and much better than most other stuff that claims to be comedy. At least they put a lot of effort into it - and the acting is excellent. So there. That's what I think. And Morris likes them aswell. So don't try and argue. Alright?

I thought it was a prime example of up its own arse crap I have seen in a long time. The whole thing was concentrating on image rather than comedy, and it just feels like a load of cocky film students let loose into the special effects and professional recording equipment cupboard. Dragging out Papa Lazarou again for another identical jeer fest, the only potentially funny joke about a man having monkey's testicles sewed to his chin was marred by the over the top 'trying to be dark' pastiche they put over everything. And the Herr Lipp bit was indeed terribly done, all based on image, not the writing. I can picture the cast all sitting there watching it play back and salivating over how 'professionally shot' it looks, rather than worrying themselves about the script.

Still, the plebs are lapping it all up, and that's exactly what the BBC wanted, with another big advert for video and DVD sales on after it, some choice remarks from the alt.comedy.british newsgroup:

EXCELLENT!
Easily the best thing on TV over Christmas and a fantastic special episode.
They just go from strength to strength! It focused on 3 main dark Christmas
stories (a present-day voodoo "Eyes Wide Shut" parody, a 1975 Herr Lipp
vampirism tale, and a 19th Century curse vignette with Dr Chinnery!). All
excellently crafted and steeped in evil-doings and black humour. Some
moments in the Herr Lipp segment were particularly unnerving.

It went slightly over-the-top at times (Lottie Lipp as a vampire?), and
didn't always make total sense in the grand scheme of things (the "payoff"
to the voodoo segment), but that didn't really matter. It was good ghoulish
fun, and actually quite a throwback to the style of Spooky Christmas TV they
used to do years ago.

On top of all that, they even managed to slot in almost every Royston Vasey
character (except Tubbs, Edward and the Dentons) in a particularly nifty way
(the voodoo table meetings) and in 19th century guises - particularly the
Pauline/Mickey/Ross incarnations. Very well done.

And, yes, even Papa Lazarou made a new appearance! You really couldn't fault
this special. Perhaps it wasn't as funny as usual LOG fare, but when the
horror is this entertaining it doesn't really matter. Even the absence of a
laugh-track didn't feel odd. In fact, I'm sure one day they'll craft a
feature-film once Royston Vasey's residents have been done to death... and
I'll be first in the queue.

Just terrific television. Roll on series 3! I'm out to get the DVD in the
sales! I recommend their book, too, by the way!

-- Dan

Hi all,

did you see the League of Gentlemen Christmas special tonight?

Carrying on the Victorian tradition of telling ghost/horror stories at
Christmas time it was an incredible horror special, with direct links to
lots of films and stories.

It worked as an anthology like the old Amicus portmanteau horrors such as
Dr Terrors House Of Horrors. Asylum, From Beyond The Grave (the third story
of which was the white masked witches in another form) and Tales From The
Crypt.

It was beyond dark into pure terror. The unexpected and bowel loosening
entry of Papa Santa Lazarou was stunning with his evil elves and there was
so much more. The highlight of Christmas and the standard by which
everything else must be judged.

cheers
Mark Coyle


Oh dear.

Steven, have you not stopped to consider that these people might actually have liked it?

Steven, ever thought you might be missing the point of something?
There's an intereasting comment from 'clem the gem' in the 'leagye of gentleman, human remains, people like us' thread. Which can be read to cover the fact i have no arguement.
But consider - how many horror films have been made that constitute three or more little stories, linked by one main vignette?
And intentionally funny?
Job well done i think.
Can someone call me a pleb now, please?

Most of the people that like the fast show are plebs, u, like most people I know who like LOG, seem not to be a pleb.

What is a pleb?

People like Steps and Robbie Williams, doesn't mean it's justified.

I liked the first series, especially so because me and my friends use to make up a similar thing when we were about 14 about the little village we live in and all the weird sick stuff that goes on behind closed doors, we even had a sick perverse story about what the guy who owns the local shop gets up to. If only we'd written all this stuff down and made a series about it. Still, the League of Gentlemen did a very similar thing to the jokes we'd make up, and I had an effinity with the sense of humour, and I really liked the first series. But the 2nd series was much worse and was going up its own arse, the last episode of the 2nd series was absolutely awful, and the Christmas special just tipifies this problem.

I can't imagine them doing a 3rd series, it would be unbarably dire, and they've got they're little money earner now, what else can they do? Do a new series about a different town and it's inhabitants? Puh-leeze..

They're entirely more engrossed in trying to muck about with special effects and try and look cool than write proper comedy anymore, and the BBC are entirely up to paying all the bills as long as they can keep all the plebs happy to buy their DVD's and videos, same with the Fast Show. The BBC aren't content with license fees anymore, they have to combat with Ch4's Ali G and Trigger Happy TV video sales rather than produce anything that justifies itself for broadcast.

>People like Steps and Robbie Williams, doesn't mean it's justified.

It's justified if they like it. Stop being a deliberately awkward little brat. Goodnight.

>But the 2nd series was much worse and was going up its own arse, the last episode of the 2nd series was absolutely awful, and the Christmas special just tipifies this problem.

I sort of know what you mean, but I still think the worst bit of LoG are better than lots of other stuff on TV.

That may be so, but only because TV is so absolutely appalling at the moment. You know they can do a lot better than this, so they should be criticised for not doing their best. The whole show has turned into an exercise for their arrogance in trying to do special effects and make it look like a professional horror film rather than a cleverly written comedy.

You have to admit the 2nd series was quite bad and destroyed all that made the first series good, the last episode was just awful in my opinion. And you have to admit the Corpses are right about the fact of them dragging out Papa Lazarou who probably had the only funny scene in the 2nd series but was quickly cast aside, and shoving him in the stage show as lowest common denominator. They only shoved him in the Christmas special for popularity reasons, and the scene he appeared in was basically exactly the same sketch as the last one.

And Anonymous, why does the popularity of something justify it's quality, this is obviously a completely stupid argument which I wont bother disproving as it would be patronising.

I've only seen a 5-minute snippet of LoG before. Having seen the special, I have to say I don't see what you have against it, Mike and Joe 4SOTCAA (if that *is* your real name).
The main case against as you seem to see it:

1. Putting gore in kills the comic effect and the chorus of "Euuggh" from the plebs puts you right off your stroke - sorry, "kills the comedy".
BUT - the fantastic chain reaction of exploding animals was funny because it was so over the top. The rabbit was a bit predictable, but the escalation made it work.
Apart from that, the gore was used in one place (justified by the fact that shock value was required) in the first story and not at all in the second.

2. Lazy reliance on catchphrases/repetition in second series (I think you accused them of this)
BUT - OK, I can't comment on this in the series. But as a newcomer to the characters, I enjoyed the episode, especially the second two stories. So there's obviously more to the writing than Pavlovian "man-falling-through-bar-makes me drool" recognition. Maybe some of the characters are overused, though or something.

3. Use of the evil quasi-film frame-skipping thing.
BUT - this should obviously depend on the material. Red Dwarf, fair enough. But with this kind of (let's say macabre to avoid using the word dark) macabre material, video would make it kill the atmosphere. Plus it looks a lot better to me nowadays than it did on Red Dwarf.
What was that Amazing Stories thing Michael Palin did? Where there was a school episode? That was shot on film, wasn't it? Would have looked shit on video.

4. Being deliberately "dark" is in itself a bad thing.
The valid part of this is that a funny, silly sitcom might struggle to get made if the current fashion for dark comedy gets out of hand.
BUT - Dr. Strangelove, that Michael Palin Amazing stories thing - what was that called? and Blue Jam (I liked Jam too, so nyaa) show that this kind of thing can work. I know you much prefer the darkness to be subtly revealed (like, say, the gay undertone in the Pub Landlord's character?) but something that's overtly unsettling rather than gag-a-minute can be good, even classic comedy.

Not that I'm saying LoG is "classic" - but on the basis of the Special it is a funny comedy show with distinctive, maybe slightly one-note, characters and strong story-telling.

Phew. This isn't an entry for your 1000 word essay thing as I don't have the quotes to back it up, but hopefully it will qualify me for some unimaginative abuse.

Papa Lazerou - surely he would have been given a much bigger part if the LoG wanted to cash in on his popularity - surely people would have turned off before he appeared - "Where's the character who calls everyone Dave - and what about those locals shop ones as well?" It appears quite a brave move having three stories concentrating on the lesser known and popularised characters (and the second wasn't told from Herr Lipp's point of view). A much easier idea would have been an hour for one story of exactly the same jokes as seen in the series, perhaps following Lazerou as he such a 'fan favourite'.
Also, from viewing the DVD, i find it hard to believe that the LoG could be arrogant about the characters - they appear genuinely pleased and ever so slightly miffed that someone would dare give 'four northern lads' (shit, a cliche) a sitcom on the BBC.Or perhaps i read too much into it.

>That may be so, but only because TV is so absolutely appalling at the moment. You know they can do a lot better than this, so they should be criticised for not doing their best. The whole show has turned into an exercise for their arrogance in trying to do special effects and make it look like a professional horror film rather than a cleverly written comedy.
>
>You have to admit the 2nd series was quite bad and destroyed all that made the first series good, the last episode was just awful in my opinion. And you have to admit the Corpses are right about the fact of them dragging out Papa Lazarou who probably had the only funny scene in the 2nd series but was quickly cast aside, and shoving him in the stage show as lowest common denominator. They only shoved him in the Christmas special for popularity reasons, and the scene he appeared in was basically exactly the same sketch as the last one.

I couldn't agree more with this posting. For me, the fact the Papa Laz's success was a complete surprise shows that the team don't really seem to know what works comedy wise. As a result, the second series felt very hit and miss, with only brief flashes of what made the first series so much better.

The programme has suffered as they no longer have a long running stage production & radio series to refine their work before making a transfer to television - the turnover rate has to be much quicker to try and retain some momentum. And because no one wants to say a bad word, they'll never get the help they really need.

Does anyone here prefer the second series to the first and can explain why?

>That's what I think. And Morris likes them >as well.

He does?

>>That's what I think. And Morris likes them >as well.
>
>He does?

_They_ tell us that he does. Morris himself has said nothing on the subject.

Hmm... difficult one this, as I found both TV series to be patchy but brilliant in places. A lot of it bored me senseless (Edward and Tubbs being a very strong example of this), but at the same time a lot was also electrifying and brilliant. Some characters and their storylines (Hillary Briss, the businessmen etc) were actually better in the second series, I feel. To be honest, I can't really say that I preferred either series to the other.

At the risk of playing into the hands of those who will howl with yawnsome laughter at my Fast Show-style repetition of a meaningless catchphrase, I really _do_ think it was better on the radio...

I agree, though, that the return of Papa Lazarou was stunningly uninventive. They could have found something new to do with him (even just off the top of my head - he returns to reclaim the circus tent that was left behind in series two, only to be outsmarted by Ally and Henry who want to use it to re-enact a film. Or something), instead of just repeating the exact same sequence again...

Papa Lazarou at the end = Giving fans exactly what they want and expect. Always a recipe for comedy death.

I hate it when mediocre things are elevated to 'innovative' level by people who haven't seen enough Absolutely.

>I hate it when mediocre things are elevated to 'innovative' level by people who haven't seen enough Absolutely.

Surely you mean "enough Innes Book Of Records"???

>>They only shoved him in the Christmas special for popularity reasons,

What's wrong with that? Are you suggesting that comedians ought not to re-use characters that have proved popular with the viewers/listeners?

> and the scene he appeared in was basically exactly the same sketch as the last one.

The sketch was nothing like the last one and it was funny.

>And because no one wants to say a bad word, they'll never get the help they really need.

So many people don't want to say a bad word because they *like* the LOG. Why do you seem to have a major problem with this?

I don't give a frig whether Morris likes them or not. I like them!!!

Well, I thought it was well scripted, quite inventive, well acted, but it just wasn't... well... comedy. You know? Over the top darkness isn't really a substitute for jokes.

>>>They only shoved him in the Christmas special for popularity reasons,
>
>What's wrong with that? Are you suggesting that comedians ought not to re-use characters that have proved popular with the viewers/listeners?

Comedians should only re-use characters if they remain fresh and funny. When a character only appears to please people or is there as a cheap, easy way of laughs, the character should be retired.

>>And because no one wants to say a bad word, they'll never get the help they really need.
>
>So many people don't want to say a bad word because they *like* the LOG. Why do you seem to have a major problem with this?

Quality should be more important than popularity.

>I don't give a frig whether Morris likes them or not. I like them!!!

You've got a point there Clem. Who cares whether Morris likes it or not. If Chris Morris suddenely came out and said he quite liked Hitler views on race would that make blowing up synagogues or bashing up blacks and Asians OK?

>Well, I thought it was well scripted, quite inventive, well acted, but it just wasn't... well... comedy. You know? Over the top darkness isn't really a substitute for jokes.

That is exactly my problem with the LoG. I've never liked it much from the start.

Interesting 'review' of the cristmas special in the new radio time - made interesting by the fact that no part of it could be referred to as a review.

What does worry me is the talk of them doing a third series set in Roysten Vasey (as opposed to keeping the LoG name but doing somthing different, which I distinctly remember them talking about), when the shortage of original ideas shown the series 2 even they would be able to spot. (btw, i would urge people to listen to the commentary on the DVD - the League aren't afraid to admit that some jokes don't work well, which certainly, imho, removes any questions of them being 'arrogant' about what they create and produce.)

So, lets all send a letter to the team saying '3rd Roysten Vasey - Don't do it'

The fact is PJ, Papa Lazarou is such a completely one dimensional character, they could have never written an entire episode about him, he was a one episode character, and more deservedly a one scene character, which was the exact same scene they repeated at the end of the Christmas special. They had to get him in somewhere, so they keep doing flashbacks of him throughout the show to try and lead up kind of fawning attention, then at the end they finish off the story with a big Papa Lazarou pleb-fest, which happened to be just a shorter version of the same scene from the second episode, second series. But you saw those letters from that newsgroup of it all being lapped up without question.

I liked Papa Lazarou the first time I saw him, it was the only funny thing I saw in much of the second series, and it left me wishing he was in more episodes, but when you realise that the scene he was in was his limit material wise, then it's pointless.
My 'plebby' friend is a big LOG fan, and even he said after the repeats of the second series "That Papa Lazarou scene wasn't as funny as I remember it the second time around." Even he saw how one dimensional it was after a second viewing.

In short the entire special was focusing on looking 'dark' and professional, rather than being funny, I'd expect that from a fucking horror film, not a bloody team of comedy writers. And what Rob said about them having no learning process with material through their stage show or radio series, then they have no way of telling what works and what doesn't. The first series didn't come out of the blue, to take away from how good the team appear, they've been dragging around the stage show for bloody years, and they've slowly crafted most of the characters and material through years of trial and error, they could actually see the audiences reactions first hand, and it helped. Now with everyone fawning at their feet at everything they do, they wouldn't know their arse from their elbow. And they're obviously more concerned in trying to look 'dark' now anyway, it was obvious the writing was going to be stronger in the radio series, where everything will be based on dialogue rather than sets and special effects, they should test out all the new stuff in more radio series before transferring them to television. They've ran the whole idea into the ground though, and I couldn't imagine liking another series, and it seems they can only really do character based comedy, and with long running, slowly crafted characters, I can't imagine them being able to do something original after this, so they're fucked unless they pull their thumbs out.

>>>Comedians should only re-use characters if they remain fresh and funny. When a character only appears to please people or is there as a cheap, easy way of laughs, the character should be retired.

If a character appears and still gets laughs, surely this is an indication that he or she is still funny. Only total noblets laugh at things that they don't find funny. Is this what a pleb is?
Is a pleb anyone who liked Papa Lazarou's appearance in the Xmas edition of LOG?
Will a corpse please define the word 'pleb' here?
This is a very good website, isn't it?
It really makes 1 think.

>>>Quality should be more important than popularity.

It is.

Interesting fact about tLOG: Matt Groening is a fan. Yep, I didn't believe it either.

>Interesting 'review' of the cristmas
> special in the new radio time - made
> interesting by the fact that no part of it > could be referred to as a review.

That's because it was a preview. Subtle difference. The fact that it was a crap preview can be explained by the initials at the end of it - AG. Alison Graham? Yup.

"Preview, review - what's the difference" - Alison Graham, in my head, about 5 seconds ago

>"Preview, review - what's the difference" - Alison Graham, in my head, about 5 seconds ago

Christ - you know her thought processes far too well. Seek help.

>See, things like this just prove how correct SOTCAA has been all along. And yet people still call us arrogant.

The tLoG special was about the only good thing on this Christmas surely? For a start we had no laughter track and we also had a programme which was a genuine blend of comedy and horror, a laughter track would really not be appropriate because it was not all played for laughs.

As for Papa's appearance at the end it was a very clever way of reusing a popular character to tie up the loose ends and also explain aspects of the previous series, i.e. Bernice's character. This pleb loved it and would eagerly watch more of the same.

>As for Papa's appearance at the end it was a very clever way of reusing a popular character to tie up the loose ends and also explain aspects of the previous series, i.e. Bernice's character. This pleb loved it and would eagerly watch more of the same.


No, sorry, it wasn't clever at all. It was as predictable and uninventive as that bloke on The Fats Show saying "which was nice".

As I said, the opportunity to do something different with Papa Lazarou was there should they have wanted it, but did they take it? No.

>No, sorry, it wasn't clever at all. It was as predictable and uninventive as that bloke on The Fats Show saying "which was nice".
As I said, the opportunity to do something different with Papa Lazarou was there should they have wanted it, but did they take it? No.

Nothing is as predictable and uninventive and unfunny as that bloke on The Fast/Fats Show saying "which was nice", other than that bloke on The Fast/Fats Show saying "You ain't seen me, right?".
They did do different things with Papa Lazarou.
They dressed him up as Santa Claus for a start.

Oooooooh!!! SO much bickering!
Well I thouroughly enjoyed the show. The League go from strength to strength in my opinion. When compared to Victoria Wood and the Royle Family's festive "Efforts" which were bland to say the least. At least these guys are challenging our comedy tastes, combining the incredibly funny with the dark macarbre. The Fast Show has long since had it's day....the fantastic Chris Morris it has to be said, disappeared up his own arse with 'jaaaaam'. And I do LOVE Chris Morris by the way. Alan Partridge has left the screen for now, what else do we have?
I greatly admire The League for their originality, their acting abilities and attention to detail. There, i've said me piece....where's me booze?

I'm bloody outraged that an article I posted to a Newsgroup, not here has been pasted in as a comment. It is somehow being construed as a criticism that they used quite a number of film references. However I see this as a homage in the way The Simpsons do this so well.

I found the episode to be excellent and being a fan of intelligent and classic horror fiction and film could see what they were trying to do.

Papa Lazarou's come back worked as he is the bogeyman, the one talked about around the camp fire. It wasn't an opportunist use to bolster the show as claimed. It showed continuity that his freakshow has been touring and causing carnage for years.

The problem with the use of Papa isn't with the show itself or its makers but is with the over reverence and python style devotion shown by many fans.

It's a program, it's great, it's an important comedy but that's all it is.

For me, the show moved on a comedy sketch based formula typified by The Fast Show, it showed how a central hub concept can link various elements that in other shows would be disparate.

Anyway, whoever posted my newsgroup comments into here should consider themselves given a dry slap!

It was me, and it was just an example of how everyone jumped onto the show praising it without question, and then said they were off to buy DVD's and videos straight after. It's almost pavlovian, and exactly what the BBC want and expect and designed it to be. Film parodies aren't funny unless they're lampooning the subject matter in some way, not just recreating the scene, anybody could do that, Papa Lazarou was a one scene character the League quickly got rid of, but after seeing the popularity of him quickly shoved him in the stage show, I mean, what can he do? He just runs in and shouts "Hello Dave?" and then screams a bit and kidnaps a woman and that's his entire act.

You could at least read in context my points and consider I was actually using those newsgroup posts as examples of the exact process the BBC are using the LOG for, and how well it is working. I would assume anybody with a decent understanding of comedy would see how the 2nd series was a big step down from the 1st, and how the Christmas special was a good example of this problem. It's all just giving 'plebs' what they want, 'dark' stuff, a bit of gore, and Papa Lazarou, and all the while getting off on their own self importance with 'the professional horror movie' look, when they should all be up all night re-writing the script and bouncing ideas off eachother, not just basing the entire programme on what the 'plebs' want, which is obviously what the BBC also wants, so they can flog it all off on DVD's and videos, and as you see from the newsgroup it's working fantastically well.

I loved the first series, the 2nd was a let down, and the special didn't make me laugh once, I just think they're just relying on a nice set formula now instead of actually relying on being innovative and funny, and I feel insulted by this, and the fans should too, people should only be fans of the material because it's deserving of praise, rather than just praise the team for existing, they get paid a shitload by the BBC, and are living it all up, they don't deserve any of this unless they justify it, and people should recognise this.

It never fails to amuse and anger me in equal quantities how boring ,cynical, and"more p their own arses than the artists could ever be"cunts that post on this poisonous,stinky little site.What the fuck do you want?
Why do the LOG get so much stick?Theyre are clearly head and shoulders above most others in comedy.And no I dont have to read HEAT to realise this.Sure theyre not flawless,but then neither was The Day Today.
If LOG were going to pander to the great unwashed of this isle they could have brought back Hilary Briss,Tubbs etc but it would have been academic because the plebs are not even watching anyway.
Happy New Year!

(Sorry for any spelling mistakes - should have checked it through, shouldn't i?)

"What the fuck do you want?"

People want to argue about whether modern comedy is dead. The LoG is a modern comedy. This site was created for such discussion, therefore such question are largely pointless, i'm afraid. Steven, for all his seething hatred and bile focused at the christmas special, is backing his view points with sound reasoning and everyone who disagrees has to do the same really. If you can't think of anything to counter what he says , then there's no point. And if you can, then he's bound to argue back. He wants people to knows that he's right: ny the same token, people want him to know that they're are right.
Sorry to Steven for using him, but he seems to be the loudest. And on that note:


"giving 'plebs' what they want, 'dark' stuff, a bit of gore, and Papa Lazarou,"

Is this really what the majority of people want? A comedy filled with gruesome, 'dark' bits, or have you just read too many of Alison Grahams self aggrandazising notes in the Radio times. Because tLoG isn't that popular really, is it? Unlike say the Royle Faimly, which now really is 'giving the plebs what they want,' the league don't really have that much of a defined audience. Christ only knows who Jane Root thinks its audiences is, or any program on BBC2 judging from her 'redifining the BBC2 brand' speil in the medai guardian a while ago. A lot of the horror/gothic references would surely fly over a lot of peoples head (mine included: must thank that DVD once more - i keep doing it, but i can't help myself.), and the comedy seems to be a personal thing, jokes designed to make the writers laugh - and hey if other people like it, well, that's a bonus too. Its how any good meia production should be made.

"they should all be up all night re-writing the script and bouncing ideas off eachother"

I'm sure the documentary showed not that long ago, made while series two was being prepared/filmed, showed them doing just that, or something similar. Don't you think you're imagining too much of whats happening Steven? You could have possibly walked into one of the corpses favourite traps here - mixing your own ideas of how something happens with actual truths.
After all, Fact is opinions, but its a thin line between that and bollocks.

>>>I'm sure the documentary showed not that long ago, made while series two was being prepared/filmed, showed them doing just that, or something similar. Don't you think you're imagining too much of whats happening Steven? You could have possibly walked into one of the corpses favourite traps here - mixing your own ideas of how something happens with actual truths.
After all, Fact is opinions, but its a thin line between that and bollocks.

I never saw the behind the scenes programme so I can't comment, but I think it's kind of obvious that the second series wasn't half as good as the first, and it featured a lot of badly written reiteration of jokes from the 1st series. The Christmas special continues the trend to a further extent I feel. The Dr. Chinnery jokes about killing pets were pretty much exhausted by the end of the first series, but at least they were more inventive then, by the 2nd all the deaths were completely pointless gore fests with loud audience noise of "Eeew!" over the top. The first series with him putting down the wrong dog as the farmer brings in the intended animal was much funnier, and didn't need any joyless gore explosions. The Christmas special went overboard again with special effects and gore, and it just had no humour behind it at all, it was like that deaf stuntman character from the Last Fast Show, they had him drive into a building and cause a massive explosion, very expensive and professional looking, but it wasn't funny in the least, and just looked like blowing a big budget on a hollow joke for the sake of it.

And for the record I like the League of Gentlemen, I don't want to be all cynical and diss them for no reason, it's just that I know they can do a lot better than this, and if everyone just keeps licking their shoes whatever they do, then they are just going to sink further into the pit they're digging. Anybody watching the first series would see that the material was much stronger, and the Christmas special was just a hollow script which was more preoccupied with looking dark, moody, cool, professional, call it what you will, but didn't really feature anything strong. Just reiteration of joyless fan favourite scenes like Papa Lazarou, and a Dr. Chinnery gore fest.

The bottom line is, I felt it wasn't funny at all, and the show has been going downhill since the 2nd series. And as far as I can see, the BBC are pushing the show to breaking point, all in the aid of sales, a heavily advertised Christmas DVD, a cassette and videotape set, and a Christmas book. All punctuated by the Christmas special, the Last Fast show stunt was a similar ploy. All in aid of the BBC making even more money, in retalliation of Ch4's video sales success.

Of course this is out of the hands of the comedy teams themselves, but I'm sure the BBC approached them both with big bags of money and asked them both to do a special, and they both accepted with no real intention of trying hard at all, both were just money spinning sales magnets. Both the specials looked very professional and more expensive than they're previous series, but both lacked completely in the writing. And on the current trend I can't imagine the LOG doing anything better next, I hope they can prove me wrong, but I doubt it, same for the Fast Show team.

I agree with Steven's comment that series one had the advantage of more polish and practise, having been the first distillation of years worth of routines and a dress rehearsal in many ways on the radio.

But to write off series two and the recent special as unworthy of anyones attention seems to be taking the snob-thing up a cul-de-sac. I'm an intermittent reader of this board, so I'm not entirely sure whether Jaaaam has any supporters, but I'd like to suggest that it's okay for Mr Morris to mix zoned-out trippiness with humour and for Mssrs Gatiss, Pemberton, Shearsmith and Dyson to balance comedy, horror and homage as they see fit on their own shows. Most good shows make their own little twist on the recipe for 'a comedy show' and thank god, because it would all be a homogenous mess otherwise, and of course there are some very undemanding things out there. (I tend not to watch things I'm not bothered about - a strange quirk of mine)

Addressing very lightly, because I don't think people wish to use this discussion to modify their personal view, the suggested failings of the Christmas Special - I liked the styling of an Amicus portmanteau horror film myself, and if some emphasis on comedy was sacrificed for shivers it seemed to be a further step on a path that the Gentlemen have commented they are progressing down. One which uses the success they have had so far as a bartering chip to do things their way.

It has been conceded that the show was nicely put together and I'd agree with that. I like the effort that goes into the backgrounds, sight gags, references - things that make it well worth rewatching.

I don't consider myself a sheep or a plebian because I watch things where I have a good idea of the tone of conversation certain characters will use and yet still enjoy their scenes. There have certainly been characters over the whole of the League output who didn't cause a lot of stimulation with each and every play on their theme, but the overall mix suits me and I continue to find elements (be they phrasing, delivery, facial expression etc) that make the majority of it work for me. Skating slightly nearer the point made earlier about the return of Papa Lazarou, I doubt it was there solely to appease 'the fans' but nice boys that they are, they knew that many would like to see him back and they obliged. Tieing neatly together his known modus operandi and the indistinct recollections that had been plagueing Bernice, my personal enjoyment of the punchline actually centred on the juxtaposition of Bernice's moods - one moment untypically benevolent and cheerful and the next confronted by the very real and physical bogeyman of her childhood, portrayed by a character that very likely has some roots in that folklore.

Just before I wander back off into the other place, my last comment is that I really thought the plundering of a newsgroup for discussion matter was impolite. Not least because you could easily have caught me in such a place, enthusing amongst friends and general publics, but because you set Dan and Mark up as targets for your point of view when they weren't actually here saying those things and therefore in place to counter-argue. They didn't get given the option of whether this is a place they would *like* to visit to comment on the League of Gentlemen. Having chosen to come along here myself, I'm sharing my views because I want to, despite a bit of deja-vu that I will get chewed up and spat out in my turn. I'd also confess that I've read all the other posts in this discussion and in accordance with the level of criticism in there, modified the way I've responded. Taking text from another place where people are having a discussion from a different standpoint then mocking it didn't provide an interesting example of your credo, just looked like what it was, something tugged out of it's proper place and plonked here without context.

I was at the Highgate live shows where the LoG tried out various TV characters, including Papa Lazarou for the first time, and the performance / audience response there throws up some interesting points about the TV version and allegations of "sloppy writing" or "no jokes".
The central gag of Lazarou in the live show was the moment where his "wife" throws back her cowl and says "He thinks I'm his wife".
This got a HUGE laugh, because up until then, the audience had been very uneasy as to what was going on.
At this stage in their career, the Gentlemen wre using minimal make-up, props and costumes, so there was no intimation that the Lazarou figure wasn't just a gypsy peg-seller or the like. The revelation that he kidnapped women was a great comedy shock.
On the TV version, the "He thinks I'm his wife" line gets no laugh at all. Not a titter. We've seen the bogeyman. Nothing he can do would shock us.
On TV, with full make-up and lighting and so on and son on, the central comedic conceit, the very reason the sketch worked, had been lost, or at least moved elsewhere.
In its place was an excellent horror movie pastiche (elements of "Freaks" and "Something Wicked This Way Comes" for example in the Pandemonium Carnival).
The writing was still the same, but the TV treatment had made the look / feel / performance / make-up FAR more important than the comedy.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, just a reflection of the different demands of TV (which is, of course, a visual medium).
I'd probably make the same observation about the Hitch-Hiker's TV series - a lot of jokes that were great on radio / the printed page got concealed by a richness of texture. Sometimes you trade one thing off for another. Depends what you're looking for.
It doesn't mean the script was weak, just that the focus had moved.

The Day Today was flawless. I can't think of a single flaw in it. Sorry.


And no, that isn't sycophantic reverence, because there were bits of even Brass Eye that I didn't like...

I saw first-hand how much thought and effort was put into the League's Christmas special because I was in it.
My, my, there are some very bitter people out there.

Yes but I was a fan, and formed by opinion with absolutely no bias, through watching the show. I think if you were in it, then obviously you're immediately going to have a bias, and I have no bitterness, just angry with the way the LOG are going, they can be much funnier than that, it was a waste of their talent, they should make comedy the top priority, not stupid gore explosions or looking professional.

Gatiss, Dyson, Pemberton and Shearsmith have watched 'Doctor Who-Ghostlight' far, *far* too many times.

Just finished watching the LoG special,

Bent

>I saw first-hand how much thought and effort was put into the League's Christmas special because I was in it.

Wow! All criticism shatters instantaneously.

I'm amazed no one has really picked up on the effect of skipping a laughter track. Did no one else sense that it showed up the total unsubtlety of every single character - Papa L using his two catchphrases and *nothing else*. No? Just me then.

Re Hackenbush's comments a million posts ago. The Palin film you speak of was 'Tomkinson's Schooldays' for 'Ripping Yarns', which used film for OB stuff and video for studio sections. Nothing unorthodox there and irrelevant to the FRV article. Film is quite expensive. That might be another issue. You've lost me, basically.

The problem with LoG on film is that it only exists in that state because the BBC wanted it to be a success. They snapped them up for a radio series and TV show. This was always the idea, so it ended up with far too much money thrown at it because it was, in their mind, a surefire winner (the Beeb have developed a nasty habit in this respect). It can't help but take itself too seriously and as the success grows so does the budget and the completely unquestioning progression of the writers up their own arses. By elevating them to this status within an unrealistic space of time means that it can't help but influence the material. Programmes should develop naturally, rather like the quiet start to 'Red Dwarf'. 'Royle Family' was doing this too until Alison Graham realised what was going on.

Mark commented earlier that as a lover of horror films he appreciated the Xmas show. And? LoG is *purely* a compilation of parody and obscure referencing. I quite enjoy spotting them but I wouldn't call it a strength. Independantly, such as with their 'Dr Who Night' contributions, these come across as brilliant observations. Within the series they become smug after a while and begin to override everything else.

The Christmas special was a case in point, moving from an 'Eyes Wide Shut' pastiche which barely hung together, shot-by-shot nicks from the BBC's 'Count Dracula'(1977) for the Herr Lipp drivel and then every MR James adaptation under the sun during the Chinnery stuff ('Warning to the Curious' *again*). Millions watch it oblivious to such budget-chewing embellishments with the result that this obscurity makes them appear innovative. The jokes and multiplicity of the actors are hardly new and nor is the structure. To quote Simon Clituris, "it's all on one level".

As for the series one/two debate, the writers picked up on the dullest plotline from the start of series two and spent the best part of the run concentrating far too much on it.

Happy New Year etc.

Steven muttered:

>the BBC are entirely up to paying all the bills as long as they can keep all the plebs happy to buy their DVD's and videos

True - but isn't the DVD they're selling the complete first series, which you claim to like?

And isn't there an element in all this LoG-inspired rage of the same fickleness that infuses the music press? As soon as a show becomes successful it seems to be dismissed as "giving the plebs what they want", in the same way that Radiohead mysteriously went from indie heroes to dadrock dinosaurs on the strength of one successful album...

I'm not for a moment claiming that LoG is flawless. I just think some people's parroting of the Corpses' own "pleb" catchphrases belies exactly the same kind of, well, pleb-like reference-grabbing lack of imagination of which they're only too keen to accuse comedy writers. Possibly.

>True - but isn't the DVD they're selling the complete first series, which you claim to like?

Why does that make a difference? They're going to buy whatever series is available, I bet as soon as the 3rd series starts the BBC will heavily advertise their new 2nd series DVD extensively.

>And isn't there an element in all this LoG-inspired rage of the same fickleness that infuses the music press? As soon as a show becomes successful it seems to be dismissed as "giving the plebs what they want", in the same way that Radiohead mysteriously went from indie heroes to dadrock dinosaurs on the strength of one successful album...

Radiohead didn't really give the plebs what they want, they had a backcatalogue of 40 recorded songs in the vein of their old massively succesful albums, but decided to instead chance making an album of different sounding material. Which is very brave, and I didn't like it as much as their previous stuff, so I didn't buy it, but it got panned by the British critics, who then praise Craig David or Westlife etc because they're selling better, which is so ironic it's not funny.

I'm not just dismissing the LOG for the sake of it, I think it's remarkably obvious to anybody the 2nd series was far worse. Stuff like Bottom and series 3 onward of Red Dwarf got incredibly `plebby', but were still funny and well written, even if they were all toilet humour and people hitting eachother, and were incredibly successful for exactly that reason. The League of Gents were an incredible success just after one series, which is something it took much longer to achieve for past programmes. I'm not saying they don't deserve it, but they've already started to go downhill vastly in the 2nd series, which is a real shame, and you would of though they'd of had more high quality material saved because they've been doing the stage show for bloody ages. They just seem very short lived to me, and I can't see them making an up to standard 3rd series or making something good an original after they've exhausted this.

>I'm not for a moment claiming that LoG is flawless. I just think some people's parroting of the Corpses' own "pleb" catchphrases belies exactly the same kind of, well, pleb-like reference-grabbing lack of imagination of which they're only too keen to accuse comedy writers. Possibly.

The first time I heard the word 'pleb' was probably from the mouth of John Cleese in an episode of Fawlty Towers, in the phrase "Something to keep the plebs happy." Wise words there, which are ironic upon viewing it in one of the same 3 episodes of Fawlty Towers the BBC only shows over and over. Maybe it is a stupid derogatory comment, but the BBC obviously market their programmes using this term, or ABC1 or whatever they call it now, they probably do use 'plebs' for short, so I'm perfectly using the happy to use the word in scorn against their dreadful commercialisation.

>>>'plebs' for short, so I'm perfectly using the happy to use the word in scorn against their dreadful commercialisation.

What exactly does it really mean?

Plebeians, basically the unthinking classes, the masses.

>I'm amazed no one has really picked up on the effect of skipping a laughter track. Did no one else sense that it showed up the total unsubtlety of every single character - Papa L using his two catchphrases and *nothing else*. No? Just me then.

I did comment upon the lack of a laugh track and I felt it was a positive step forward. I didn't think it needed a laugh track and the fact that they have finally got their way and produced a show without the laugh track is a good sign surely, the glorious incidental music gave enough atmosphere. I thought the characters were subtle enough although it seems that tLoG is destined to be lumped in with every other show known only for the catch phrases, something the over rated 'Fast Show' has a lot to answer for. Papa is a man of few words ("that's the whole point"), what would you like him to say? :-)

>By elevating them to this status within an unrealistic space of time means that it can't help but influence the material. Programmes should develop naturally, rather like the quiet start to 'Red Dwarf'. 'Royle Family' was doing this too until Alison Graham realised what was going on.

It's happened with a few shows that have been put forward as the next big thing, Royle Family is something I have never really liked and Red Dwarf continued long after it had ran out of steam (the first 2 series were glorious) but the difference with tLoG in my opinion is that it did have something refreshing to offer. Although series 2 did not have the originality of series 1 (no way it could have done) it was still the freshest thing on the telly last year and I did not feel let down by the special at all. It had a new format extending the roles of under used characters, had Tubbs and Edward been used maybe it could justifiably call it 'pleb pleasing' (but had it been funny - who cares) but they didn't.

>Mark commented earlier that as a lover of horror films he appreciated the Xmas show. And? LoG is *purely* a compilation of parody and obscure referencing. and begin to override everything else.

LoG has always been an influences driven show, look how much they confess to taking from the Wicker Man so spotting references is nothing new with these guys but I didn't think this detracted from the show.

>As for the series one/two debate, the writers picked up on the dullest plotline from the start of series two and spent the best part of the run concentrating far too much on it.

I didn't thin the plot of series 2 was dull, not that there was much of a plot, more of a way to link from one sketch to another. I guess then that not many people here will give series 3 a go? Shame as I am sure they still have the potential to give us some great stuff.

>I thought the characters were subtle enough although it seems that tLoG is destined to be lumped in with every other show known only for the catch phrases, something the over rated 'Fast Show' has a lot to answer for.

Nonsense. There is no subtlety in LOG. Anywhere. All the characters may as well have "Do you see?" tattooed on their foreheads, the same jokes explaining the same characteristics again and again. Hardly Umberto Eco.

>Although series 2 did not have the originality of series 1 (no way it could have done) it was still the freshest thing on the telly last year and I did not feel let down by the special at all.

And still no one has pinpointed the "innovation" and "originality" in LOG. It may have some good jokes but as a product of the current comedy climate, it's treated like a message from the Gods. It ain't.

As for best things on TV last year, what about 'Asylum'(C4) or 'Black Cab'(BBC2)? Fresh ideas in both.

>It had a new format extending the roles of under used characters

What baffles me is the bravity which people are bestowing on the special for breaking new ground, when it follows the generic structures of horror and subverts the ending of series 2 by quite cowardly means. A fresh start is the best thing for them. If they can make a half-way decent show again, with a completely new formula, then I'll be pleased for them.

>had Tubbs and Edward been used maybe it could justifiably call it 'pleb pleasing'
(but had it been funny - who cares) but they didn't.

Surely Tubbs and Edwards were the dullest characters from the off. I never saw the fascination.

The writers had no expectations for the one-off idea of Papa L to become a cult character, and were amazed when he did. His return in the special *is* pleb pleasing.

>LoG has always been an influences driven show.

You clipped my comments. It makes no odds that they acknowledge influences, but my point was that this operates best in isolation with the Gatiss/Dyson sketches for 'Dr Who Night'. In the context of the series such references are deceiving to the casual viewer, who may not pick up on them and attribute it to some imagined genius on the part of the writers.

Bent

>Nonsense. There is no subtlety in LOG. Anywhere. All the characters may as well have "Do you see?" tattooed on their foreheads, the same jokes explaining the same characteristics again and again. Hardly Umberto Eco.

It works for me though. I thought it was subtle, you didn't, I don't think we will agree. :-)

>As for best things on TV last year, what about 'Asylum'(C4) or 'Black Cab'(BBC2)? Fresh ideas in both.

I don't remember Black Cab, was it tucked away at a silly time or Asylum, was this the same show which started on paramount comedy channel? Wasn't keen on that at all but maybe I should keep a look out for them.

>What baffles me is the bravity which people are bestowing on the special for breaking new ground, when it follows the generic structures of horror and subverts the ending of series 2 by quite cowardly means.

I don't think the special should be looked at as in relation to series 2, it was more a stand alone little escapade in much the same way as the Simpsons Halloween shows, else we will always have a vampiric past in Herr Lipp's past.

>A fresh start is the best thing for them. If they can make a half-way decent show again, with a completely new formula, then I'll be pleased for them.

Maybe but I suspect that they will get one more series out of Royston Vasey, we have a cliff hanger to resolve still.

>Surely Tubbs and Edwards were the dullest characters from the off. I never saw the fascination.

I rather liked them, but felt the over quoting of the characters rather weakened their impact but they are popular, the stage show illustrates that so if fresh material can be written for them why not give us more.

>The writers had no expectations for the one-off idea of Papa L to become a cult character, and were amazed when he did. His return in the special *is* pleb pleasing.

If the whole special had been based round Papa then you would be right but it wasn't and it was just a nice sequence reusing him to explain Bernice's character. I liked it.

>You clipped my comments. It makes no odds that they acknowledge influences, but my point was that this operates best in isolation with the Gatiss/Dyson sketches for 'Dr Who Night'. In the context of the series such references are deceiving to the casual viewer, who may not pick up on them and attribute it to some imagined genius on the part of the writers.

Sorry, I had no intention to clip relevant quotings but it would get a bit long had I left everything in, and not all my comments were based on your points. Since the original bits that the LoG based stuff on weren't usually comedy (The Goodies excepted) then paying homage in a comedy show and making people laugh even without getting the references may not be completely genius but is rather clever non the less.

It seems that people here will just never like the tLoG, others will. People seem to be getting unnecessary steamed up about it. That's life.