TV Home Forum

Vicar of Dibley

(January 2005)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
MA
marksi
cat posted:
marksi posted:
Pootle5 posted:
You've been upset because you felt a comedy programme (called The Vicar of Dibley) "preached" to you. How terrible for you. Good job you're not 8 and have lost both your parents to HIV. I repeat what I said before. If the programme helped ONE child in ANY way, then it's worth it. Or do you not agree?


Marksi... you're missing the point. This is a COMEDY programme.

Comedy shows like this are supposed to provide an escape from the world, so we don't have to feel constantly depressed. The Vicar of Dibley is so surreal on this level that it is hard not to see it as escapism.

I just find it baffling that in one programme we were treated to hearing about how these characters thought Margaret Thatcher was still the Prime Minister, and by the end of the evening they were telling us all to save victims of AIDS in Africa. That is not appropriate in a comedy programme.

I agree that it would be fantastic if the programme helped one child... but there are more appropriate ways of doing it. It would have had the same - if not more - impact had it been shown separately.



No, I'm not missing the point. And yes, funnily enough, I do know it's a comedy programme. Which is why, as other people have said, this "surprising" factor made it more shocking. I disagree that showing it separately would have had the same or more impact. In the context it played out in, it would have reached a sizeable number of people who wouldn't have watched a standalone appeal.
PO
Pootle5
marksi posted:
Pootle5 posted:
marksi posted:
Pootle5 posted:


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


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!)


That's not the point I was making, though I fear it's been lost in the rest of the arguments so I'll say it again...

My point is simply that if the programme helped one child in any way, then it was worthwhile.

What I'm asking you is - do you disagree with that statement? Are you saying that your enjoyment of a comedy is more important than helping an orphaned child? I'm sure you're not, but if you step back from your argument for a little while then you'll see that your replies leave me unsure.


Let me spell it out to you: I find your use of the argument "Good job you're not 8 and have lost both your parents to HIV" insulting for the reasons I've said above.

And I have already answered you other points.
MA
marksi
Pootle5 posted:
marksi posted:
Pootle5 posted:
marksi posted:
Pootle5 posted:


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


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!)


That's not the point I was making, though I fear it's been lost in the rest of the arguments so I'll say it again...

My point is simply that if the programme helped one child in any way, then it was worthwhile.

What I'm asking you is - do you disagree with that statement? Are you saying that your enjoyment of a comedy is more important than helping an orphaned child? I'm sure you're not, but if you step back from your argument for a little while then you'll see that your replies leave me unsure.


Let me spell it out to you: I find your use of the argument "Good job you're not 8 and have lost both your parents to HIV" insulting for the reasons I've said above.

And I have already answered you other points.


Where?
PO
Pootle5
marksi posted:
cat posted:
marksi posted:
Pootle5 posted:
You've been upset because you felt a comedy programme (called The Vicar of Dibley) "preached" to you. How terrible for you. Good job you're not 8 and have lost both your parents to HIV. I repeat what I said before. If the programme helped ONE child in ANY way, then it's worth it. Or do you not agree?


Marksi... you're missing the point. This is a COMEDY programme.

Comedy shows like this are supposed to provide an escape from the world, so we don't have to feel constantly depressed. The Vicar of Dibley is so surreal on this level that it is hard not to see it as escapism.

I just find it baffling that in one programme we were treated to hearing about how these characters thought Margaret Thatcher was still the Prime Minister, and by the end of the evening they were telling us all to save victims of AIDS in Africa. That is not appropriate in a comedy programme.

I agree that it would be fantastic if the programme helped one child... but there are more appropriate ways of doing it. It would have had the same - if not more - impact had it been shown separately.



No, I'm not missing the point. And yes, funnily enough, I do know it's a comedy programme. Which is why, as other people have said, this "surprising" factor made it more shocking. I disagree that showing it separately would have had the same or more impact. In the context it played out in, it would have reached a sizeable number of people who wouldn't have watched a standalone appeal.


I'm not sure what happened with the quotes above but I did not write that first bit - in fact it was aimed at me originally!
PO
Pootle5
Pootle5 posted:
marksi posted:
Pootle5 posted:
I've thought about this for an hour or so now, and I'm even more annoyed at what was allowed to happen tonight.

This should, at least, have been flagged up as a special episode to help launch this new appeal. It should then have been screened on another day - not when settling down for a bit of entertainment at 9pm on New Years Day.

I'm concerned that the writer has been allowed to crowbar in such serious and moving subject matter to a what is supposed to be a light-hearted comedy show.

I feel preached at tonight, and feel that somehow they were trying to guilt trip people - and that loses goodwill in my book.

The subject is difficult, shocking, and moving, but then so are so many other causes. It was a very clumsilly handled stunt, and the context totally wrong.


You've been upset because you felt a comedy programme (called The Vicar of Dibley) "preached" to you. How terrible for you. Good job you're not 8 and have lost both your parents to HIV. I repeat what I said before. If the programme helped ONE child in ANY way, then it's worth it. Or do you not agree?


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.


Above Marksi
EH
Edward H
Please can we settle down.. Mad
MA
marksi
I still don't see an answer to my specific point.
CA
cat
marksi posted:
No, I'm not missing the point. And yes, funnily enough, I do know it's a comedy programme. Which is why, as other people have said, this "surprising" factor made it more shocking. I disagree that showing it separately would have had the same or more impact. In the context it played out in, it would have reached a sizeable number of people who wouldn't have watched a standalone appeal.


Ok... so let's say you're not missing the point. And let's turn the situation on its head and assume this happened:

At the end of a charity appeal, a comedian comes on and tells us about how life is one big joke and we shouldn't get ourselves too stressed about things.

Would that be appropriate? No, of course not. It would, in fact, entirely defeat the point of the appeal.

So why do you think it is appropriate to put a serious charity appeal on to the end of a surreal comedy programme?

It did make it shocking, it did make me think... but I wasn't just thinking 'oh god, those poor children', I was also thinking 'what the Hell is going on?'

It just isn't appropriate to have a comedy programme making you want to cry, in the same way that it isn't appropriate to have a charity appeal making you want to laugh.

Worth a look:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?state=threads&board=entertainment.comedy1&
PO
Pootle5
marksi posted:
I still don't see an answer to my specific point.


Which specifc point? I think I've answered all of them and will not be drawn to repeat myself.
MA
marksi
Pootle5 posted:
marksi posted:
I still don't see an answer to my specific point.


Which specifc point? I think I've answered all of them and will not be drawn to repeat myself.


My point is simply that if the programme helped one child in any way, then it was worthwhile.

What I'm asking you is - do you disagree with that statement? Are you saying that your enjoyment of one single comedy is more important than helping an orphaned child?

It's a yes/no answer.
MA
Marcus Founding member
What a miserable, self centered lot you are.

So what if your favorite comedy was spoiled by a serious ending. If that is the worst of your troubles this Christmas then you should feel very grateful indeed.

Many of you may share David Horton's view that new traffic lights at Salisbury's may be a bigger problem than poverty in the third world. Richard Curtis has every right to jolt you out of that self satisfied view.

It wasn't a charity appeal. I was a simply way to get people thinking. Christmas is meant to be a time to think about those worse off than yourself. Sorry if it put you off that last mince pie.

As for the timing, Just because millions have now had their lives torn apart in Asia, doesn't not stop the suffering in Africa. Orphans do not suddenly find a new parent because a child in Sri Lanka has seen theirs swept to their death.

There is no compulsion to give. It's up to you and your conscience. I suspect what has annoyed many is that their conscience was pric ked. You are free to ignore the issues just as you can ignore that woman on the way to WH Smith's.

Why not log onto the website at Make Poverty History and read about some of the issues. Hey you could even give up some of your time and help a bit.
PO
Pootle5
marksi posted:
Pootle5 posted:
marksi posted:
I still don't see an answer to my specific point.


Which specifc point? I think I've answered all of them and will not be drawn to repeat myself.


My point is simply that if the programme helped one child in any way, then it was worthwhile.



What I'm asking you is - do you disagree with that statement? Are you saying that your enjoyment of one single comedy is more important than helping an orphaned child?

It's a yes/no answer.


If you really can't see my response to your original point of "if the programme helped one child in any way, then it was worthwhile", I said (and I re-quote)

"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."

Newer posts