Rimmer in Top 5 on 411mania.com

[listerssock]

Yet another poll from a pop-culture website this time 411mania.com’s The Top 5 Comedic Television Characters.

The Article

In Steve Gustafson’s mind he beats Chandler Bing, Tim Bisley & Father Dougal.

Topic

[Pete Part Three]

“Despite the fact that the show ran to, what, less than fifty episodes…”

Not a great start.

[Ian Symes]

I like the way that he felt the small amount of episodes of Dwarf was worth pointing out, but not Ted (25), Blackadder (24 and a couple of specials) or Spaced (14).

[Phil]

Was this actually a poll? I get the feeling it was just a few writers from the site assembling their lists independently.

The forced disregard of animated characters is more than a little pointless. They ARE comedy characters, just as much as anyone else on that list. And even if I did take into account all of the piss-poor Simpsons episodes (every single one of them), I’d take Homer Simpson over at least 1/3 of the characters mentioned in those lists.

[Pete Part Three]

>They ARE comedy characters, just as much as anyone else on that list. And even if I did take into account all of the piss-poor Simpsons episodes (every single one of them), I?d take Homer Simpson over at least 1/3 of the characters mentioned in those lists.

Well, quite. And Ralph Wiggum.

[Seb Patrick]

I wouldn’t quibble with Homer as the all-time greatest TV character. Comedy or otherwise.

The Doctor would run him close, mind.

Also – Blackadder is four different characters. Six, if you include the Christmas Carol. Seven, if you include Back and Forth… oh, you get the idea. Anyway, there are clear differences between all the Blackadders – even the II-IV ones – which is kind of the point…

[Jonathan Capps]

Although he does seem to have a pretty decent grasp on the character and show (miscounting episodes aside.)

[Seb Patrick]

Yeah, it’s actually not that bad a piece…

[Pete Part Three]

>The Doctor would run him close, mind.

>Also – Blackadder is four different characters.

The Doctor is ten! ;-)

[Seb Patrick]

Er, no.

[Pete Part Three]

Sure, he may be the same *character*, but not by anything that actually defines a character; their personality, their attitude, even what they look like. Regeneration is more than just a change of appearance. If you were to define the personality of The Doctor it would lead to a pretty contradictory analysis, not because he’s badly written, but because he’s changed significantly due to the nature of the show.

WW1 Blackadder had more in common with Regency Blackadder, than Tennant Doctor has in common with Eccleston Doctor.

[Seb Patrick]

I’m going to respectfully disagree with your misconception about one of the most fundamental tenets of the show, and wait for Ian to show up and explain it better ;-)

[Pete Part Three]

[taps foot]

I stress that I’m no authority on Doctor Who but, from what I’ve seen of the show, the regeneration often seems to be be a way of “changing” the central character. And this is even mentioned (such as in The Christmas Invasion).

And if it wasn’t for the differences in the character following regeneration, the multi-Doctor episodes would be nothing but fanwank.

Oh.

[ChrisM]

I’ve always thought of the Blackadders as the same character in different time periods. With the exception of Edmund Platagenet from The Black Adder of course. Yeah, they’re technically separate characters being descendants of the character of previous series, etc, but the characters are essentially the same, different only in their change in circumstance.

As for the Doctor, yeah I think theres a good case for them being separate characters as their personalities differ somewhat with each regeneration. That being said, I can see how others might disagree as the basic principles of the character are largely the same… and even then that is arguable. I haven’t seen much old Who, but I remember a Who related programme, (I forget the name, but I don’t think it was Confidential) discussing how one of the incarnations went rather dark (although not evil), something to do with traumatic regeneration or somesuch. I believe it was the blond curly one…

[Andrew]

I think there’s more in common between any two incarnations of the Doctor than there is between – say – Who Jack and Torchwood Jack… :-)

Given that most of the basics with the Doctor stay the same – history, intellect, sense of right and wrong, under-expressed need for a companion – I think you have to call the changes (how willing he is to fight physically, how devious and secretive he’ll be, etc.) ‘character development’, in the same way (sigh) Martha pretty much became someone else. That it happens – usually – over a single story, and as the result of SF-ish circumstances, all leading to a different actor, doesn’t change the fundamental base of the character.

Some Doctors are reeling from the Time War, some are sick of being under the thumb of Gallifrey, but that’s all stuff you could equally play out with a single actor. Story-wise, I see a regeneration as being an extreme version of, say, a major amputation. When a regular character in ER loses a limb and then becomes angry, sullen – or, for that matter, stronger, more defiant – that’s development rather than upheaval. Regeneration is physical trauma and repair in extremis.

Davies said, and I believe it, that he started to write the tenth Doctor much as he did the ninth. Eventually you start to work to the strengths of the actor (casting being where the ‘feel’ really changes for the audience), but I don’t think the change is ever so radical as to call him a different character.

All of THAT said, there’s no denying Pete has a point, because actor changes do alter people’s perception of a character. Some can’t stand Moore as Bond – “That’s not James Bond” – and that’s certainly relevant. Because audience perception, to some degree, IS the content.

[Seb Patrick]

I?ve always thought of the Blackadders as the same character in different time periods. With the exception of Edmund Platagenet from The Black Adder of course. Yeah, they?re technically separate characters being descendants of the character of previous series, etc, but the characters are essentially the same, different only in their change in circumstance.

I don’t agree – Elizabethan Blackadder is a dashing nobleman with a slightly vicious streak. Regency Blackadder has a bit more of a sense of right/wrong about him, but is still quite self-serving – in this incarnation, though, he aspires to nobility, being a butler, and is far less confident. There’s more of a sense of things crumbling around him at times, whereas Elizabethan Blackadder is more in control. And Captain Blackadder is even more different – he’s easily the most sympathetic of the four. Yes, he’s still a bit conniving, but there’s far more of a sense of an ordinary, decent (if sarcastic) bloke in difficult circumstances.

[Andrew]

> but there?s far more of a sense of an ordinary, decent (if sarcastic) bloke in difficult circumstances.

It’s tricky, because – ignoring any time travel stuff – if you put Back Adder II into III’s butler job, it’s reasonable to think he’d lose confidence, gain a little more moral code and develop aspirations. Likewise, if you shove the same guy into the trenches…

So much of Blackadder is a product of the era and circumstance, it’s hard to categorically state that he is OR isn’t the same fundamental character. It’s essentially a nature/nurture debate every bit as unwinnable as the one in real life. Whatever that is.

[Ridley]

Blackadder Christmas Carol?

[ChrisM]

I don?t agree – Elizabethan Blackadder is a dashing nobleman with a slightly vicious streak. Regency Blackadder has a bit more of a sense of right/wrong about him, but is still quite self-serving – in this incarnation, though, he aspires to nobility, being a butler, and is far less confident.

I basically saw that as more a change of circumstance though. I.e it certainly influences the character, but fundamentally I think they’re the same. Sure the dashing nobleman of Elizabethan England is more dangerous in that he has more power, and thus the ability to wreak havoc. However, I didn’t think the third incarnation had a greater sense of right or wrong… although having dropped a class there might be bit more of a sense of humility (although I think it is largely false.) Sure he’s less confident, but again thats the influence of circumstance I’d say.

If you gave him the same level of power I reckon he’d be as bad as his ancestor. In fact, since he actually usurps Prince George’s place at the end of the series, I wonder what he became after that? A bit more secretive than the first incarnation no doubt (he wouldn’t want to give himself away) but a rogue still I bet.

And Captain Blackadder is even more different – he?s easily the most sympathetic of the four. Yes, he?s still a bit conniving, but there?s far more of a sense of an ordinary, decent (if sarcastic) bloke in difficult circumstances.

Actually, I’ll give you that one. I think he could still have ended up the rogue of his forbears in similar circumstances, and I still think he’s self serving and would happily sacrifice his men if it meant he’d get to escape… but he does seem to have more of a moral centre.

I forgot Scrooge Blackadder too. He actually started off a good guy didn’t he (although even then he showed some of that slightly mean wit in one of his comments to Baldrick.) It didn’t take him long to put away his good deeds and become selfish when he thought he’d gain from it. (Mind you his victims pretty much had it coming.)

[Pete Part Three]

With Blackadder though, you could also spin it so that it’s a character growing older and changing in social standing (assisted by the fact that Atkinson gets older throughout the series)

Captain Blackadder has a world-weariness about him that perhaps stems from his situation and his age. Likewise, Regency Blackadder is a humble servant so his outlook on life will be different. Elizabethan Blackadder can be dashing because his social standing allows.

Admittedly, this doesn’t really reconcile the first Blackadder. He has more in common with Percy than his ancestors.

I guess you could relate this to Doctor Who, as Andrew says. Pertwee is stuck on Earth rather than having free-reign of the universe, Eccleston has just lost his family and friends.

When I was younger I wasn’t aware that a change in the main star of Doctor Who had been caused by a regeneration. For example, I assumed the Mccoy was *supposed* to be Baker and this had not been acknowledged within the show (as in Bond).

It was only when I started to look into the show (at around the time the TV Movie arrived and the Radio Times did an excellent retrospective on the show) that I learnt about regeneration.

Whatever their intentions, most articles on the show often feel the need to point out the differences in the actors’ portrayals (case in point being [shudder] Wikipedia which has individual pages for each Doctor, with paragraphs for each one on “Personality”).

I agree to a point about this being “character development”, but if a Doctor develops a trait, regenerates, loses this trait, regenerates a few more times, and then picks up this long-dormant trait again, it makes me a bit more ambiguous. And interesting, admittedly. (Time Crash being a case in point, because it illustrated that the 10th Doctor has more in common with the 5th Doctor than, say, the 6th or the 7th).

Hence my comment about Mult-Doctor stories. If two identical characters are on screen it can lead to greatness (Me2, for example), but three or four or FIVE? That would be awful. But Doctor Who never did that, because the characters of the incarnations are different enough to make it interesting.

[Pete Part Three]

>Blackadder Christmas Carol?

Is awesome.

[Just realised how much of my post above is covered in the subsequent posts by other people. Screw my slow typing!}

[ChrisM]

And while I was typing my previous post, Andrew made the same point rather more succinctly.

Concerning the first series, I had never seen it before I got the box-set. I think it is way underrated actually. I much prefer the characters of Blackadder and Baldrick in the later series, but I think the series has a lot going for it. Decent stories (the first dragged a bit for me mind you) great sets. Brian Blessed, and some great comedic moments (“Little boy with big job to do.”).

And I found the alternate history thing rather intriguing too, particularly in light of Tony Robinson’s documentary on Richard the third challenging certain preconceptions of that monarch.

[Pete Part Three]

>In fact, since he actually usurps Prince George?s place at the end of the series, I wonder what he became after that? A bit more secretive than the first incarnation no doubt (he wouldn?t want to give himself away) but a rogue still I bet.

Dual and Duality is set around 1805, King George V (aka Edmund Blackadder) died in 1820.

>I forgot Scrooge Blackadder too. He actually started off a good guy didn?t he

It’s interesting to note that Ebenezer Blackadder knows nothing of his ancestors. Presumably he’s an illegitimate bastard like most of the Blackadders, but was unique to the family line in that he was be raised by good people.

Nature vs Nurture rearing its ugly head again…

[John Hoare]

It was only when I started to look into the show (at around the time the TV Movie arrived and the Radio Times did an excellent retrospective on the show) that I learnt about regeneration.

One of the last points that the Radio Times could be called excellent!

All I’d say has been said already, so I’m just going to agree that Christmas Carol is great, and one of my favourite episodes. Nicola Bryant is *hilarious* – I wish she’d done more comedy on telly.

And agreed with Chris M that S1 is hugely underrated. “Oooh, silly witches!” Great production values, too.

[Andrew]

> When I was younger I wasn?t aware that a change in the main star of Doctor Who had been caused by a regeneration. For example, I assumed the Mccoy was *supposed* to be Baker and this had not been acknowledged within the show (as in Bond).

This is interesting. And I don’t see why, had the Doctor been intended as a time traveling human a la Cushing, it couldn’t have gone that way – though I guess you’d have tried to recast with actors of the same age and approximate look. (As with soap opera recasting), rather than taking the chance to find a new energy.

Still, you do keep getting variants of the same guy, especially when you look…

> Wikipedia which has individual pages for each Doctor, with paragraphs for each one on ?Personality?

…at this. The brilliant thing about those entries are how much effort is put into showing how DIFFERENT each Doctor is from the others. They’re categorised by difference, not simply individual personality. You wouldn’t get that kind of thing if the basic point wasn’t ‘same bloke’ – a character history would have done the job.

“This Doctor would have killed his enemy, that one walked away”. The same exact thing can be said for the Bonds. Moore never used the shaken/stirred catchphrase, and McCoy never ate jelly babies. But everyone goes through phases…

(In MY pre-teen youth I didn’t realise the actor who played Bond even changed. I genuinely didn’t realise Moore and Conenry weren’t the same guy – because, to me, they were!)

[Ridley]

Is awesome.

[Partridge]D’you really think so?[/Partridge] The only special I consider close to being on par with the series is the Cavalier years. Not that I don’t like them, they’re just… different.

[ChrisM]

I thought it curious (I’m easily fascinated) in Blackadder Back and Forth, that Robin Hood referred to Lord Blackadder by name. I.e. from a time period before The Black Adder, when Baldrick supposedly came up with that title. (We can get away with the Roman version as they never actually refer to each other by name.)

Obviously they’re more interested in comedy than continuity… but I like trying to reason ways it could work. (And I actually, have…. how sad of me.)

[Pete Part Three]

>The same exact thing can be said for the Bonds. Moore never used the shaken/stirred catchphrase, and McCoy never ate jelly babies.

Too true. It only takes a sequence such as Moore kicking the car off the cliff in For Your Eyes Only to alter the perception that, throughout his tenure, he was a complete softy.

And with that in mind, I should probably shut up about Doctor Who as I don’t know the show well enough to cite examples with much confidence. In as few words as possible; they just seem like different characters, and I’d like to think I’d feel the same way even if was some immortal actor playing the role for the last 40 years and changing his clothes every few seasons.

I have a lot of respect for The Blackadder, but I don’t find it particularly amusing. Were it not for its heritage, it’s doubtful I’d have seen it quite so many times.

Mind you, this exchange from The Witchsmeller Pursuivant always makes me chuckle:

Edmund: Does anyone know what happened?

Peasant: (raises his arm) No, I don’t!

[Ridley]

Drizzlehell (5 days ago)

Isn’t the Witchsmeller the guy who plays The Cat in Red Dwarf? He smiles very similarly. 0_o

[Dave]

>McCoy never ate jelly babies

He did in the TV movie

[ChrisM]

Did you mean the elderly cat priest?

[Andrew]

> He did in the TV movie

Bah – right you are. And I’d already ditched ‘played the recorder’ in case he did it at some point…

[Ian Symes]

I?m going to respectfully disagree with your misconception about one of the most fundamental tenets of the show, and wait for Ian to show up and explain it better ;-)

Me? Did you mean to put me?

[TheLeen]

This is the most interesting discussion I’ve read all week (and it’s alreay Saturday).

(I’m not going to mention the hall of fame, mind you.)

[Ben Paddon]

Andrew sez…
And I?d already ditched ?played the recorder? in case he did it at some point?

Y’know, I think he did.

[Author]

Replies