JV
James Vertigan
Founding member
Interesting to see Duncan's announcement into Speed appear on the ITV News in the report about this subject last night!
M
It wouldn't pass for comedy in these places. British comedy is world renowned for being the best on Earth. It's not as simple as quoting what was said and asking whether it was funny. As usual, you had to be there. It's the way it was said mixed with the shock of it's sudden appearance in conversation. I listened to the whole programme two weeks ago and laughed. I thought it was funny. In poor taste, but funny. I'm often described as quite a prude when it comes to language. I don't like hearing people swear in public. It annoys me that pointless words are slipped into sentences. But in this context, I couldn't help but laugh.
M@
Founding member
Chie posted:
Secondly, I wonder if this sort of dross would pass for 'comedy' in countries like France, America, Canada, etc? We seem to be the only country in the world where a lot of people think telling a 78 year old man you slept with (nay, effed) his daughter is funny
It wouldn't pass for comedy in these places. British comedy is world renowned for being the best on Earth. It's not as simple as quoting what was said and asking whether it was funny. As usual, you had to be there. It's the way it was said mixed with the shock of it's sudden appearance in conversation. I listened to the whole programme two weeks ago and laughed. I thought it was funny. In poor taste, but funny. I'm often described as quite a prude when it comes to language. I don't like hearing people swear in public. It annoys me that pointless words are slipped into sentences. But in this context, I couldn't help but laugh.
GS
It wouldn't pass for comedy in these places. British comedy is world renowned for being the best on Earth. It's not as simple as quoting what was said and asking whether it was funny. As usual, you had to be there. It's the way it was said mixed with the shock of it's sudden appearance in conversation. I listened to the whole programme two weeks ago and laughed. I thought it was funny. In poor taste, but funny. I'm often described as quite a prude when it comes to language. I don't like hearing people swear in public. It annoys me that pointless words are slipped into sentences. But in this context, I couldn't help but laugh.
That's an interesting point - but laughter is a spontaneous reflex, sometimes arising out of shock.
Jerry Sadowitz is a great example of a comedian who provokes laughs with some extremely shocking words and concepts. I personally think he can be very funny - but often I laugh first and then reflect on what he's actually said.
For example, I don't in any way consider myself racist - I find it offensive. But I have blurted out a laugh at some of Mr Sadowitz's material on that subject, precisely because it was unexpected.
But I appreciate we shouldn't get bogged down in the study of laughter and humour.
The difference is I paid my money and went to see Jerry Sadowitz at the Edinburgh Festival, so I had an anticipation of what was to come. You simply can't broadcast Jerry's material on air because of its shocking content - it definitely WILL offend a large chunk of the audience.
It's the same measure of taste and deceny being questioned here -
Was it funny? Well it made you laugh, so yes.
Should it have been broadcast? No.
Its pretty simple, really.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
M@ posted:
Chie posted:
Secondly, I wonder if this sort of dross would pass for 'comedy' in countries like France, America, Canada, etc? We seem to be the only country in the world where a lot of people think telling a 78 year old man you slept with (nay, effed) his daughter is funny
It wouldn't pass for comedy in these places. British comedy is world renowned for being the best on Earth. It's not as simple as quoting what was said and asking whether it was funny. As usual, you had to be there. It's the way it was said mixed with the shock of it's sudden appearance in conversation. I listened to the whole programme two weeks ago and laughed. I thought it was funny. In poor taste, but funny. I'm often described as quite a prude when it comes to language. I don't like hearing people swear in public. It annoys me that pointless words are slipped into sentences. But in this context, I couldn't help but laugh.
That's an interesting point - but laughter is a spontaneous reflex, sometimes arising out of shock.
Jerry Sadowitz is a great example of a comedian who provokes laughs with some extremely shocking words and concepts. I personally think he can be very funny - but often I laugh first and then reflect on what he's actually said.
For example, I don't in any way consider myself racist - I find it offensive. But I have blurted out a laugh at some of Mr Sadowitz's material on that subject, precisely because it was unexpected.
But I appreciate we shouldn't get bogged down in the study of laughter and humour.
The difference is I paid my money and went to see Jerry Sadowitz at the Edinburgh Festival, so I had an anticipation of what was to come. You simply can't broadcast Jerry's material on air because of its shocking content - it definitely WILL offend a large chunk of the audience.
It's the same measure of taste and deceny being questioned here -
Was it funny? Well it made you laugh, so yes.
Should it have been broadcast? No.
Its pretty simple, really.
R2
I might as well give my opinion on the matter.
Had this segment been live and they only made the first phone call then it might not have been that bad as it could have just been a joke that had gone too far. The problem for me is that it was pre-recorded yet still was allowed on air, which really the BBC and Ross and Brand should have known better. Given the pre-recorded element, I say the punishments to all involved are just and serve them right.
What does annoy me is how everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. I recall only two complaints were made at the time of broadcast, now we're into the tens of thousands, probably with people who would never dream of listening or watching these two presenters.
On the television side of things, a few people suggested that there should be another presenter on Friday Night to cover the rest of the series. To me, that wouldn't work as the show, to be honest, is about Jonathan. There are some good interviews but there are also some downright rubbish and silly ones and most end up with Jonathan making cheap jokes at the guest. Hopefully with the show being rested for three months it will give them time to have some different guests on other than Gordon Ramsay, Ricky Gervais or Alan Carr.
Was there any mention of the scandal last night with the announcements on BBC One into the replacement programmes or was it a generic 'a change to the schedule/earlier than planned'?
Had this segment been live and they only made the first phone call then it might not have been that bad as it could have just been a joke that had gone too far. The problem for me is that it was pre-recorded yet still was allowed on air, which really the BBC and Ross and Brand should have known better. Given the pre-recorded element, I say the punishments to all involved are just and serve them right.
What does annoy me is how everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. I recall only two complaints were made at the time of broadcast, now we're into the tens of thousands, probably with people who would never dream of listening or watching these two presenters.
On the television side of things, a few people suggested that there should be another presenter on Friday Night to cover the rest of the series. To me, that wouldn't work as the show, to be honest, is about Jonathan. There are some good interviews but there are also some downright rubbish and silly ones and most end up with Jonathan making cheap jokes at the guest. Hopefully with the show being rested for three months it will give them time to have some different guests on other than Gordon Ramsay, Ricky Gervais or Alan Carr.
Was there any mention of the scandal last night with the announcements on BBC One into the replacement programmes or was it a generic 'a change to the schedule/earlier than planned'?
ST
so Mr Woss is suspended without pay for 12 weeks,
with a 6 million pound annual pay cheque for basically being a cocky sod with a speach inpediment I don't think we'll be too upset, considering it takes 43 thousand and 10 pounds worth of licence fees just to pay him
Now the BBC will have 1 million, 3 hundred and 84 thousand, 6 hundred and 15 pounds our money to spend on some decent television and radio instead
with a 6 million pound annual pay cheque for basically being a cocky sod with a speach inpediment I don't think we'll be too upset, considering it takes 43 thousand and 10 pounds worth of licence fees just to pay him
Now the BBC will have 1 million, 3 hundred and 84 thousand, 6 hundred and 15 pounds our money to spend on some decent television and radio instead
CH
Bit of an over-reaction to the over-reaction, no? Another story on the Guardian website caught my eye this morning.
Performers fear 'safety first' will lead to exodus of talent
John Lloyd, the producer of Spitting Image who is also behind the Stephen Fry-fronted panel show QI, said he hoped the incident led to a reappraisal of how risk- taking television was defined.
"What passes for risk-taking in television today is showing people having sex on Big Brother. That's not a risk - it's just grubby," he said.
cylon6 posted:
Bit of an over-reaction to the over-reaction, no? Another story on the Guardian website caught my eye this morning.
Performers fear 'safety first' will lead to exodus of talent
John Lloyd, the producer of Spitting Image who is also behind the Stephen Fry-fronted panel show QI, said he hoped the incident led to a reappraisal of how risk- taking television was defined.
"What passes for risk-taking in television today is showing people having sex on Big Brother. That's not a risk - it's just grubby," he said.
NG
Except that the BBC still have to cover the costs of the cancelled productions (to do otherwise would be totally unacceptable) AND cover the costs of replacing the air-time. It may not save that much at all...
noggin
Founding member
stevek2 posted:
so Mr Woss is suspended without pay for 12 weeks,
with a 6 million pound annual pay cheque for basically being a cocky sod with a speach inpediment I don't think we'll be too upset, considering it takes 43 thousand and 10 pounds worth of licence fees just to pay him
Now the BBC will have 1 million, 3 hundred and 84 thousand, 6 hundred and 15 pounds our money to spend on some decent television and radio instead
with a 6 million pound annual pay cheque for basically being a cocky sod with a speach inpediment I don't think we'll be too upset, considering it takes 43 thousand and 10 pounds worth of licence fees just to pay him
Now the BBC will have 1 million, 3 hundred and 84 thousand, 6 hundred and 15 pounds our money to spend on some decent television and radio instead
Except that the BBC still have to cover the costs of the cancelled productions (to do otherwise would be totally unacceptable) AND cover the costs of replacing the air-time. It may not save that much at all...
RM
Who is to say that the replacement will kill it? It may be the person who takes over will do a better job (not difficult in my opinion )
Larry the Loafer posted:
I'm not too fussed over Brand resigning as I don't watch or listen to much of his shows, but now Wossy sacks (no pun intended) off the comedy awards? I've always loved the ceremony, so I hate to think what presenter will kill it.
Who is to say that the replacement will kill it? It may be the person who takes over will do a better job (not difficult in my opinion )