CA
Boll0cks cat.
There is no right and wrong way to make people aware of what is going on. Comedy writers don't exist in a vaccuum, and neither should they. Dibley has had one of the largest audiences of any comedy this season and made the most of the sheer numbers of families tuning in.
If there had been a stand alone appeal, I suspect most of you would have channel hopped away.
Donate or shut the hell up. It's really that simple.
Right, so I should be expecting appeals for orphans in the middle of the Chuckle Brothers, Little Britain, etc?
In fact, let us just scrap the whole concept of comedy because people are dying. Let's get rid of every other TV programme and just turn BBC One into a rehash of the Community Channel.
It might be ''that simple'' in your tiny mind, Gavin, but clearly it is not otherwise we wouldn't have 8 pages of comment on it.
Gavin Scott posted:
cat posted:
What people are saying is that making appeals for dying children in Africa are best left to direct appeals and not incorporated into comedy programmes.
Boll0cks cat.
There is no right and wrong way to make people aware of what is going on. Comedy writers don't exist in a vaccuum, and neither should they. Dibley has had one of the largest audiences of any comedy this season and made the most of the sheer numbers of families tuning in.
If there had been a stand alone appeal, I suspect most of you would have channel hopped away.
Donate or shut the hell up. It's really that simple.
Right, so I should be expecting appeals for orphans in the middle of the Chuckle Brothers, Little Britain, etc?
In fact, let us just scrap the whole concept of comedy because people are dying. Let's get rid of every other TV programme and just turn BBC One into a rehash of the Community Channel.
It might be ''that simple'' in your tiny mind, Gavin, but clearly it is not otherwise we wouldn't have 8 pages of comment on it.
JO
Agreed the first thing I watched that brought a tear to my eye & I ain't ashamed to say that. It was out of the blue but prehaps the type of people who change the channel when they know them types of programmes come on may have acutally taken notice.
I have no complaints about the ending at all although it is a bit strange to see it in a comedy programme.
However it did make me think & for that I have no complaint at all people saying that it has no place in a comedy programme should get over it. The fact that Live Aid was 20 years ago & we STILL have these problems proves that this message is needed
Sorry to sound political but that is my opinion
JFC On The Web posted:
It may have been talked about already, but I can't tell, but the end of The Vicar Of Dibley last night touched me. I never thought a Helpline caption would appear on a comedy.
Congratulations Tiger Aspect.
Congratulations Tiger Aspect.
Agreed the first thing I watched that brought a tear to my eye & I ain't ashamed to say that. It was out of the blue but prehaps the type of people who change the channel when they know them types of programmes come on may have acutally taken notice.
I have no complaints about the ending at all although it is a bit strange to see it in a comedy programme.
However it did make me think & for that I have no complaint at all people saying that it has no place in a comedy programme should get over it. The fact that Live Aid was 20 years ago & we STILL have these problems proves that this message is needed
Sorry to sound political but that is my opinion
MA
Boll0cks cat.
There is no right and wrong way to make people aware of what is going on. Comedy writers don't exist in a vaccuum, and neither should they. Dibley has had one of the largest audiences of any comedy this season and made the most of the sheer numbers of families tuning in.
If there had been a stand alone appeal, I suspect most of you would have channel hopped away.
Donate or shut the hell up. It's really that simple.
Right, so I should be expecting appeals for orphans in the middle of the Chuckle Brothers, Little Britain, etc?
In fact, let us just scrap the whole concept of comedy because people are dying. Let's get rid of every other TV programme and just turn BBC One into a rehash of the Community Channel.
It might be ''that simple'' in your tiny mind, Gavin, but clearly it is not otherwise we wouldn't have 8 pages of comment on it.
If every comedy programme was doing this you'd have a right to be annoyed. But they're not. The reason this had the impact it did was because it's unusual. Oh, and are the personal insults necessary cat?
cat posted:
Gavin Scott posted:
cat posted:
What people are saying is that making appeals for dying children in Africa are best left to direct appeals and not incorporated into comedy programmes.
Boll0cks cat.
There is no right and wrong way to make people aware of what is going on. Comedy writers don't exist in a vaccuum, and neither should they. Dibley has had one of the largest audiences of any comedy this season and made the most of the sheer numbers of families tuning in.
If there had been a stand alone appeal, I suspect most of you would have channel hopped away.
Donate or shut the hell up. It's really that simple.
Right, so I should be expecting appeals for orphans in the middle of the Chuckle Brothers, Little Britain, etc?
In fact, let us just scrap the whole concept of comedy because people are dying. Let's get rid of every other TV programme and just turn BBC One into a rehash of the Community Channel.
It might be ''that simple'' in your tiny mind, Gavin, but clearly it is not otherwise we wouldn't have 8 pages of comment on it.
If every comedy programme was doing this you'd have a right to be annoyed. But they're not. The reason this had the impact it did was because it's unusual. Oh, and are the personal insults necessary cat?
BR
Whilst this may well be a valid point, as with many other forms of advertising (and after all, this was advertising a charity appeal), people usually pass comments if an advert caused concern in some way. It seems that this advert/appeal did just that for many here.
Brian
marksi posted:
AJSR:
...and we wouldn't have been if this had been a standalone appeal.
Quote:
The very fact that we are all discussing it has to be a good thing...
...and we wouldn't have been if this had been a standalone appeal.
Whilst this may well be a valid point, as with many other forms of advertising (and after all, this was advertising a charity appeal), people usually pass comments if an advert caused concern in some way. It seems that this advert/appeal did just that for many here.
Brian
CA
Which does not make it good.
Just because someone decides to be different doesn't mean they suddenly deserve respect.
And what impact has it had? None on me, I am afraid to say, other than affirming my view that AIDS and humour is not a great combination.
News reports on famine in the Sudan and tsunamis in the Indian Ocean are what raised millions, not comedy programmes.
marksi posted:
[The reason this had the impact it did was because it's unusual
Which does not make it good.
Just because someone decides to be different doesn't mean they suddenly deserve respect.
And what impact has it had? None on me, I am afraid to say, other than affirming my view that AIDS and humour is not a great combination.
News reports on famine in the Sudan and tsunamis in the Indian Ocean are what raised millions, not comedy programmes.
DU
The point is not whether the appeal is worthy- it clearly is- but what it was doing hijacking a comedy programme.
It was really poorly done. Richard Curtis CAN do serious comedy- look at the end of Blackadder.
But this was just poorly written.
It preached and was cringeworthy- enough to make people largely indifferent to the cause. That's a downright failure on the part of the writing team.
The aim was to make us argue about Blair's words without actions on Africa. The result is an argument about why it was placed in the programme so poorly.
As has been suggested, it would be far better for a funny episode, with jokes about Live Aid, and then replacing the credits with the video shown introduced by Dawn French (as Dawn French not Geraldine).
That way you separate the comedy from the politics, but keep the high audience for both.
You'd also get a far, far better response to the serious message.
It was really poorly done. Richard Curtis CAN do serious comedy- look at the end of Blackadder.
But this was just poorly written.
It preached and was cringeworthy- enough to make people largely indifferent to the cause. That's a downright failure on the part of the writing team.
The aim was to make us argue about Blair's words without actions on Africa. The result is an argument about why it was placed in the programme so poorly.
As has been suggested, it would be far better for a funny episode, with jokes about Live Aid, and then replacing the credits with the video shown introduced by Dawn French (as Dawn French not Geraldine).
That way you separate the comedy from the politics, but keep the high audience for both.
You'd also get a far, far better response to the serious message.
JA
jay
Founding member
I think the fact that it was shown in a serious way rather than making a joke out of everything makes this episode all the more special.
Yes, it's a bit unusual seeing that sort of thing in a comedy programme, but who is the person that defines comedy?
This episode was comedy mixed with a serious message - it showed that you can laugh at life sometimes and cry at others. I was deeply moved by the video at the end.
I agree and disagree about the bad timing - OK, the South East Asia disaster is truly awful - but is it really fair that those people are getting so much money donated to them - billions of dollars, when the situation is the same, if not slightly worse in Africa? It just highlighted the fact that at this time of giving and thinking of others, we need to think outside of just Asia.
I say well done for going ahead with showing this episode, BBC.
Yes, it's a bit unusual seeing that sort of thing in a comedy programme, but who is the person that defines comedy?
This episode was comedy mixed with a serious message - it showed that you can laugh at life sometimes and cry at others. I was deeply moved by the video at the end.
I agree and disagree about the bad timing - OK, the South East Asia disaster is truly awful - but is it really fair that those people are getting so much money donated to them - billions of dollars, when the situation is the same, if not slightly worse in Africa? It just highlighted the fact that at this time of giving and thinking of others, we need to think outside of just Asia.
I say well done for going ahead with showing this episode, BBC.
GS
No you shouldn't. The point of this totally unique episode was its unexpected impact.
Where is this coming from? It was ONE episode at the end of a long--running well respected family sitcom. Its hardly the start of things to come, nor is it a new template for the cataclysmic blurring of programme genres. It was a one-off that doesn't really need 8 pages of complaint about.
Well as strongly as I might feel about any other aspect of this discussion, I am a little shocked that you would throw that at me, cat.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
cat posted:
Right, so I should be expecting appeals for orphans in the middle of the Chuckle Brothers, Little Britain, etc?
No you shouldn't. The point of this totally unique episode was its unexpected impact.
Quote:
In fact, let us just scrap the whole concept of comedy because people are dying. Let's get rid of every other TV programme and just turn BBC One into a rehash of the Community Channel.
Where is this coming from? It was ONE episode at the end of a long--running well respected family sitcom. Its hardly the start of things to come, nor is it a new template for the cataclysmic blurring of programme genres. It was a one-off that doesn't really need 8 pages of complaint about.
Quote:
It might be ''that simple'' in your tiny mind, Gavin, but clearly it is not otherwise we wouldn't have 8 pages of comment on it.
Well as strongly as I might feel about any other aspect of this discussion, I am a little shocked that you would throw that at me, cat.
GM
nodnirG kraM
Yes, yes there are orphaned kids in Africa dying, there are people suffering from AIDS; I'm not one of them, no.
As has been said I am very very lucky. I have privelidges galore which people across the globe could only dream of. I have, as you say, a "warm, cosy bed". I have PCs, TVs, central heating, a car, sanitation, running water, a fridge specifically for beer. I have all these things, yes.
I am grateful for every small blessing I've had in life; but what I have I have worked for. And on my wage, worked f__ing hard for. Just because I've got something doesn't mean I should not be angered by a beggar on my screen in prime time TV.
____
Why is it that Africa and AIDS has been given this soap box anyway? Where will this product placement end? There are literally millions of charities for all sorts of people, conditions, diseases etc. Most of whom are desparate for any form of funding at all. And most of whom are lucky to have an old dear standing outside a railway station with a collection tin.
There are plenty of good causes far closer to home I would rather see funding going to. The Earl Hague fund, Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation to name but a few. This country is several billion pounds in debt. Taxes are rocketing. Infrastracture crumbling. Health service stretched to capacity. Personally I would like to see more HOMELAND investment before we start saving the rest of the world. Once Britain is once again Great, then we can save everyone else on the planet. Until then a bit of "perspective" to the poverty-stricken, AIDS-infected and generally needy people closer to home would be nice.
____
Which point have I missed this time?
As has been said I am very very lucky. I have privelidges galore which people across the globe could only dream of. I have, as you say, a "warm, cosy bed". I have PCs, TVs, central heating, a car, sanitation, running water, a fridge specifically for beer. I have all these things, yes.
I am grateful for every small blessing I've had in life; but what I have I have worked for. And on my wage, worked f__ing hard for. Just because I've got something doesn't mean I should not be angered by a beggar on my screen in prime time TV.
____
Why is it that Africa and AIDS has been given this soap box anyway? Where will this product placement end? There are literally millions of charities for all sorts of people, conditions, diseases etc. Most of whom are desparate for any form of funding at all. And most of whom are lucky to have an old dear standing outside a railway station with a collection tin.
There are plenty of good causes far closer to home I would rather see funding going to. The Earl Hague fund, Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation to name but a few. This country is several billion pounds in debt. Taxes are rocketing. Infrastracture crumbling. Health service stretched to capacity. Personally I would like to see more HOMELAND investment before we start saving the rest of the world. Once Britain is once again Great, then we can save everyone else on the planet. Until then a bit of "perspective" to the poverty-stricken, AIDS-infected and generally needy people closer to home would be nice.
____
Which point have I missed this time?
CA
Well I think we can all agree that comedy is not about making people upset.
I would have hoped that we might've all agreed that a programme which featured speed dating, Margaret Thatcher as PM, a woman who thinks 40 year olds should be shot (where did the storyline of her birthday go, come to think of it?), letters to the Prime Minister (who we still didn't establish was Tony Blair) along the lines of 'Sod off you ****' and suchlike, does not sit well with AIDS victims in Africa crying over their dead parents.
I appreciate that the point of the ending was to make us think about these poor people, and that our complaints about the programme in comparison to theirs are just so insignificant, but as tsunami has said... we aren't talking about the plight of these people, we're talking about how appropriate it was to put them in a comedy programme.
Gavin: I will take back the tiny mind comment, it wasn't meant to be quite as personal as it sounded. For the record, I think your points are very well argued, my disagreement with one of them just came out a little more passionately than perhaps it should've.
jay posted:
Yes, it's a bit unusual seeing that sort of thing in a comedy programme, but who is the person that defines comedy?.
Well I think we can all agree that comedy is not about making people upset.
I would have hoped that we might've all agreed that a programme which featured speed dating, Margaret Thatcher as PM, a woman who thinks 40 year olds should be shot (where did the storyline of her birthday go, come to think of it?), letters to the Prime Minister (who we still didn't establish was Tony Blair) along the lines of 'Sod off you ****' and suchlike, does not sit well with AIDS victims in Africa crying over their dead parents.
I appreciate that the point of the ending was to make us think about these poor people, and that our complaints about the programme in comparison to theirs are just so insignificant, but as tsunami has said... we aren't talking about the plight of these people, we're talking about how appropriate it was to put them in a comedy programme.
Gavin: I will take back the tiny mind comment, it wasn't meant to be quite as personal as it sounded. For the record, I think your points are very well argued, my disagreement with one of them just came out a little more passionately than perhaps it should've.