Vicar of Dibley

Firstly:

That's a ridiculous point to make. It's irrelevant, has completely different connotations and I don't think you thought about that comment particularly well.

Secondly:

The job of the Vicar Of Dibley simply IS NOT to preach. By all means, the show - with relation to its whole nature - should address issues and convey them in a comic manner. The ending of tonight's programme was not part of that programme.

Thirdly:

Surely you don't class three second shots of comic actors staring through the camera lens displaying their white arm bands as "tact"? I'd class it as emotional blackmail myself - and a very bad choice to do so in that manner.

The BBC, and indeed Richard Curtis, have a track history of addressing serious matters and conveying them intelligently yet in a comedic manner. Even taking the comic element out of The Vicar Of Dibley for a moment would be acceptable - but the ending of tonight's programme was so badly done I felt awkward on their behalf. Perhaps they're proud of it, but in my opinion it was so so wrong.

Yes a comedy programme. Would you have expected it in Father Ted?

Yes being preached at is terrible IMO. I can see for myself the pictures on the news tonight (and many other nights throughout the year) and can see that people need our help and how none of us do enough to help. I don't need a sitcom writer coming on and telling me these things; maybe some people do?

I said in my other posts how it could have been dealt with less clumsilly and Comic Relief, Children In Need etc are brilliant examples of how comedy can be used to raise funds and it is in a different context that tonight's episode should've been used where it could've had a more positive impact. Of course if it has prompted some people to give money then that's good, but for future reference I still think it is wrong to handle it the way they did tonight.

As for your other comments they are just down right insulting.

Well as you didn't see the episode in question, you can't really comment on it, can you. The episode did not in any way "demand" the viewer to dip into their pockets. That wasn't the point of the appeal. It was to raise awareness of the issues.

It seems a lot of what was shown tonight has gone over the heads of many here, with people saying things like "i know there's starving children in africa..." etc.

How ignorant.

PS, i don't like the way it was done, and feel that a 25 minute Vicar Of Dibley with a separate 4 minute documentary at the end would have been better.

The issues could of been raised in a much better way though. As I said in a previous post, the episode where she donates all the money raised for the Stained-Glass window to the African people is a much better way of doing it. It fits in well with the episode whilst still raising the issue, and it certainly made me cry when Dawns character started crying. However this was too over the top I think.

There's a slight contradiction in there (or a slight edit at the last minute, which appears to contradict what you were saying in the first place). First you say everyone's ignorant for complaining about the moral message being crowbarred in, and then you say it's not the way you think it should have been done.

I didn't see the episode in question, which is why I made a general comment about the majority being constantly asked to shell out when the rich minority in this country could make such a difference, and the way issues such as these as raised in programming. I'm not a government minister and I don't feel like doing a "This is a disgrace, but I didn't see it".

Politics can be introduced into a comedy in a way which is integral to the plot - The Simpsons and shows like this are a great example of how to do it. On the other hand crowbarring your own politics down the viewers' throats to the detriment of the show is unacceptable. I didn't see it, so I'm not going to judge how it's been done here. If it was the latter, it's pretty shabby.

What I can't stand is people claiming the moral high ground for themselves. Whether the programme dealt with this issue properly, or should have at all, is open to discussion. Stating "Just think yourself lucky you're not in Africa" is just using emotional blackmail. Discuss the point on its merits.

I agree with your PS edit completely.

As for my earlier comment about "Vote BNP" in weather forecasts, I had thought about it - putting aside the humanitarian aspects - the writer was also making political points here which I think were out of place in this particular comedy programme - which was billed as a happy jolly New Year comedy special - not a political satire show. I nearly said "Vote Green" but it wouldn't have grabed the attention - just as I guess they intended to do tonight with the Vicar of Dibley! There, I've stitched up my own argument good n proper now!

I didn't mean for them to be insulting, but I did mean them. You don't agree then?

I just think that it is wrong to use the "think yourself lucky that..." type of starting point in a discussion. I think it is insulting to the people in whatever situation is being given as the example.

I might think myself lucky that I'm not you - for example.

(and I really do not mean that in a nasty way marksi, I'm just demonstrating my point!)

The Vicar of dibley is still a first rate show, and I suppose that because of this the launch of the appeal was felt appropriate to be included in a top rated programme. It does make me wonder about the credibility of it all though. How would the villagers understand the importance of the video when they were supposed to think that Mrs Thatcher was still Prime Minister.

Every programme has it's bogey show and tonight The Vicar of Dibley had it's own bogey!

I can't begin to tell you how angry this made me. You can shoot me down as much as you like, I am making NO apologies for what I'm about to say. I am well aware of what is going on in Africa and across the globe with crises such as AIDS, poverty, tsunamis etc.

A sitcom is NOT the place for this pornography. There is no other way of describing the way this was handled. A 3-minute video of starving orphaned kids? Constant clumsy references to statistics and guilt trips? This is entertainment?

My family were out this evening so I recorded tonight's episode to re-watch tomorrow, but after reading what's been said felt compelled to view it straight away. And I can tell you I will not be playing it again, or if I do it will be a strictly edited version.

I give money to worthy charities, I support those who need supporting. But I do it on MY OWN terms. If I sit down to watch a programme billed in listings as "comedy" I do NOT expect to be force-fed propaganda on the writer and cast's beliefs. No matter how worthy the cause is, if something is described as comedy, it should be comedy. Tonight's episode was not.

As has been said over and again a shortened episode with the birthday and speed dating should have been shown tonight and the tear-jerk-athon should be saved until comic relief.



Flame me all you want. Tonight's episode was completely unacceptable. It's not what I pay my licence fee for.

nodnirG kraM: I'm not going to flame you, I couldn't agree more.

I was accusing people of being ignorant for criticising it so strongly, when they didn't even understand the message. That has nothing to do with my views on how tonight's show was handled.

It's nice to know that everyone who has got so angry about tonight's Vicar of Dibley are probably snuggled in their cosy warm beds, and will no doubt have three substantial meals tomorrow, and the rest.

A bit of perspective lads.