Worst 10 British sitcoms ever??

[James]

I’m sorry I just had to post this link

http://board.sitcom.co.uk/thread/11773

NO WAY!!

Topic

[Carlito]

A Prince Among Men… now that wasn’t great, but I still watched them all.

I remember that about mid way through the second series it got shafted to a Sunday afternoon timeslot, at which point it suddenly got really good! The last 3 or 4 episodes of A Prince Among Men were pretty funny, and no one saw them coz they were buried in the post-lunch Sunday nap timeslot.

[si]

I remember at a DJ I asked Chris, “A Prince Among Men…why?”

I imagine I’ve mentioned this before, but when the opportunity arises…

Actually, I didn’t mind it that much, I just thought it might provide a memorable moment of the weekend.

[Carlito]

What was his response?

[ChrisM]

>I remember at a DJ I asked Chris, ?A Prince Among Men?why??

What did he say?

[si]

I can’t remember!

[Carlito]

GODDAMMIT, SI! I wanted that!

I mean… the other readers wanted that answer.

To run tests on it.

Or something.

[Tarka Dal]

Why indeed.

[Carlito]

Currently watching No Signal on FX… this isn’t bad, is this an FX original?

[locusceruleus]

>I remember at a DJ I asked Chris, ?A Prince Among Men?why??

For some reason the only line I remember from that entire series is ‘Nobody likes a floater, do they?’

So speaking of lousy British sitcoms, has anyone else seen any of Curry and Chips? Not recommended if you want to keep your respect for Spike Milligan intact.

[John Hoare]

So speaking of lousy British sitcoms, has anyone else seen any of Curry and Chips? Not recommended if you want to keep your respect for Spike Milligan intact.

Seen the first episode. And I laughed quite a lot. It’s also clearly meant to be against discrimination. I find it a lot less offensive than the casual racism in, say Confessions from a Holiday Camp – at least the subject is being dealt with.

But this is the thing – anyone can pick any comedy show in the world they hate, and there’ll be someone willing to defend it!

[Dave]

I remember seeing Harry Enfield interviewed about Celeb, probably on & Chums Connections or something. He blamed the demise of Celeb on the arrival of The Osbornes which sidelined it. Life imitated farce. He neglected to mention that Celeb was shit from start to finish via middle.

[Carlito]

And that the Osbournes was probably just as carefully orchestrated as Celeb was, yet more entertaining by far.

[locusceruleus]

>Seen the first episode. And I laughed quite a lot. It?s also clearly meant to be against discrimination.

I know…maybe it would have been better without an audience? When you have people laughing just because someone’s been called a Paki, it certainly clouds wherever the writer’s sympathies lie.

Racism or anti-racism aside, I really did think it was unfunny and embarrassing.

[John Hoare]

I know?maybe it would have been better without an audience? When you have people laughing just because someone?s been called a Paki, it certainly clouds wherever the writer?s sympathies lie.

Yeah, it’s uncomfortable at times. The racist jokes – the “one hour’s more daylight” gag and so on – are *jokes*, that get a reaction.

Confused sympathies, or a subtle take on the subject that refuses to make things, erm, a black and white issue? There’s arguments for both sides, and I’d need to see it again before I decided.

[Phil]

“What did he say?”
“He says he wants you to give him a thick ear.”

[HonestTom]

That Rik Mayall one too? Believe Nothing I *think* it was called.

I remember catching an episode of that. My flatmate walked in and I tried to claim I’d accidentally switched it on while looking for porn. That is how bad it was. I remember thinking that it must have been some sort of parody, because surely nothing this bad would have been commissioned.

Also, The Crouches can fuck off an’ all.

[pfm]

The Crouches should have been good, but this is ’00s BBC we’re talking about here.

[si]

Prince Among Men (Starring Chris Barrie) > Not Good.
Captain Butler (Starring Craig Charles) > Not Good.
The Crouches (Starring Danny John-Jules) > Not Good.
Thus Robert Llewellyn wins.

[Jonathan Capps]

> Thus Robert Llewellyn wins.

So what else is new?

[Tarka Dal]

> Thus Robert Llewellyn wins.

Objection!

IT2i2? Out of the four Rob’s the only one who doesn’t get paid to make shite comedy, he has to put it out on DVD himself. Also why does IT2i2 have Ian on the cover?

[Pete Part Three]

Robert Llewellyn loses for playing the Data Doctor in Red Dwarf, which is possibly the worst comedy performance ever.

[TheLeen]

Prince Among Men (Starring Chris Barrie) > Not Good.
Captain Butler (Starring Craig Charles) > Not Good.
The Crouches (Starring Danny John-Jules) > Not Good.
Thus Robert Llewellyn wins.

The Brittas Empire > anything Robert ever did, outside of Dwarf.

[Tarka Dal]

Maid Marian > The Brittas Empire

Awaits for some smart-arse to pop-up with Peep Show > Red Dwarf (Sophia wins)

[locusceruleus]

>Robert Llewellyn loses for playing the Data Doctor in Red Dwarf, which is possibly the worst comedy performance ever.

True enough.

> Maid Marian > The Brittas Empire

I’d say they were about even, but it must be about ten years since I’ve watched either.

[Jo]

Car Pool is really good actually!

[John Hoare]

I love Maid Marian to bits, but I’d have to say that The Brittas Empire is better. But then, I think Brittas pretty much equals Dwarf…

[hummingbird]

I never could stand Brittas.

[Pete Part Three]

>I think Brittas pretty much equals Dwarf?

I nominate this post for “Hall of Bollocks” status.

[Carlito]

Robert Llewellyn… The Corner House… fail.

I haven’t even seen it, but he says it’s awful, so… I’ll take his word for it.

[si]

I was talking about lead performances.

I know it2i2 is shocking, but it wasn’t a TV sitcom.

Oh, bollocks.

[John Hoare]

>I think Brittas pretty much equals Dwarf?

I nominate this post for ?Hall of Bollocks? status.

I’ve definitely had more belly laughs out of Brittas than Dwarf, for a start!

But something like The Trial, for instance – it’s about some of the most perfectly constructed sitcom I’ve seen.

[Carlito]

Brittas wasn’t bad at all (well, until the end) but it’s no Red Dwarf. Too broad, too slapstick, too BBC1, too mainstream… nothing wrong with any of that, nothing wrong with a show that appeals to generations, to families, but it’s got no real substance, there’s no meat to it. It’s mainly fluff, stuffed with stereotypes, contrivances and one dimensional characters.

None of which matters if it’s funny, I guess, and it was funny for a good while. But it doesn’t rank up there with my favourite comedies of all time, whereas Dwarf is very close to the top.

[JamesTC]

Brittas himself was far from a one dimensional character.

[Carlito]

Not Brittas, but some of the others.

Carole, the perennially-emotional struggling single mum.

Colin, the Baldrick of the leisure centre world.

You’ve got the evil councillor, the arsey secretary, the downtrodden wife, and generally unrealistic cartoon-like customers popping up all the time.

I know I’m kinda pigeon-holing some of these elements in a way, but there’s not much more to most of them than their ‘sitcom character’, designed to serve a purpose. Fluff.

[Jonathan Capps]

I’m sorry, but Brittas is no where near being fucking mainstream.

[Pete Part Three]

>Colin, the Baldrick of the leisure centre world.

I’m not sure I understand this. Is Baldrick one-dimensional too, then?

Anyway, Carol and Colin are two of the best things about Brittas. My earlier comment was not that it was shit, just that it’s nowehere near as timeless as Dwarf.

The first two couple of series are patchy, the 3rd, 4th and 5th series are good. The 6th is mediocre. The 7th is shite.

[si]

I agree, the final series of Brittas was, quite frankly, embarrassing.

[Andrew]

> I?m sorry, but Brittas is no where near being fucking mainstream.

I’m sorry, but primetime BBC1 sitcom for a family audience – mainstream it most certainly was. That it had brilliant, dark tones and social commentary doesn’t make it less so. (Cue John with a list of 70s and 80s sitcoms that did the same thing.)

But ‘mainstream’ doesn’t remotely equal what neandercarl is suggesting. The brilliant specificity of the plotting, coupled with characters that DID have dimensions (when you put it all together, you see some painstaking backstories at work), put it massively beyond mere ‘fluff’.

Just because you’re able to watch it in a shallow way, doesn’t make it a shallow show.

[thomasaevans]

Can I just flag up Satilite City… its hysterical! It may seem ott to many, but it really is a cracking sitcom! Shame the network didnt see It.

[hummingbird]

> it?s got no real substance, there?s no meat to it. It?s mainly fluff, stuffed with stereotypes, contrivances and one dimensional characters

sounds very like G&T

[Pete Part Three]

Did you miss the chicken (mc)nugget discussion?

[hummingbird]

Unfortunately not.

[Ian Symes]

You’re mean. :o(

[John Hoare]

I?m sorry, but primetime BBC1 sitcom for a family audience – mainstream it most certainly was. That it had brilliant, dark tones and social commentary doesn?t make it less so. (Cue John with a list of 70s and 80s sitcoms that did the same thing.)

Indeed. And I’m going to be annoying and mention George and Mildred again – but the relationship between those two characters is beautifully done.

But ?mainstream? doesn?t remotely equal what neandercarl is suggesting. The brilliant specificity of the plotting, coupled with characters that DID have dimensions (when you put it all together, you see some painstaking backstories at work), put it massively beyond mere ?fluff?.

Just because you?re able to watch it in a shallow way, doesn?t make it a shallow show.

This x 1000.

[hummingbird]

> The brilliant specificity of the plotting, coupled with characters that DID have dimensions (when you put it all together, you see some painstaking backstories at work)

That may be true, but the viewer has got to stick around for more than just the occasional episode to appreciate those aspects. When you watch Brittas on DVD, and you sit and watch a whole series back to back, you can do that.

I initially saw Brittas back when it was first aired, and watching just one ep at a time wasn’t enough to ‘draw me in’. It just didn’t hold my attention sufficiently to keep me watching week after week.

I’d be willing to give it another chance, but I’m reluctant to part with my hard earned ???? to watch something that I didn’t rate first time around.

If I could find the eps online then maybe I’d give it a go.

[Carlito]

> I?m not sure I understand this. Is Baldrick one-dimensional too, then?

I’d say so. For the most part.

[Carlito]

> But ?mainstream? doesn?t remotely equal what neandercarl is suggesting. The brilliant specificity of the plotting, coupled with characters that DID have dimensions (when you put it all together, you see some painstaking backstories at work), put it massively beyond mere ?fluff?.

> Just because you?re able to watch it in a shallow way, doesn?t make it a shallow show.

For the record, I never called the show itself “fluff”, just certain elements of it. There’s nothing wrong with “fluff”. There’s nothing wrong with one dimensional characters or stereotypes in a sitcom just as long as they make you laugh. I’m cool with that.

But you can’t paint Brittas as being some dark social commentary under the surface when it was nothing of the sort… and if I viewed the show “shallowly” then I rest easy in the knowledge that so did many millions of others who just watched the show to be entertained rather than analyzing every single element of it. In my Eng Lit and Media degree, I spent rather a lot of time scrutinising and critiquing every little element of television, film, books… yet when I usually watch/read I often specifically choose to turn off that part of my brain in order to simply enjoy the presentation unfolding the way it was most likely intended (certainly in the case of a comedy anyway). I’m not worried about ‘undertones’ in a comedy show as a casual viewer.

Just to contradict myself, it matters a LOT when you are a dedicated, avid fan of a show (as I am with Dwarf). Therefore you can view any TV show (in which its writers have respect/consideration for both the casual and avid viewer when constructing the scripts) as somewhat of a hologram.

View the hologram at one angle (as a casual viewer) you will see one image. View it from a different angle (as an avid fan) and you will see a different, more detailed image. But for a show to be successful, both images must be equally pleasing.

To watch a show from a casual, non-critical perspective doesn’t make me shallow, nor does it make my opinion any less relevant than that of somebody who has intricate knowledge of a show… my opinion is formed by my view of the hologram, your opinion by your view. But when a show leaves itself open to such an interpretation of being one dimensional and goofy to those who don’t follow it rigorously, then you can’t be surprised when that is a common misconception (if, indeed, it is a misconception). Viewer perception is fact, good intentions or otherwise.

[Andrew]

“there?s not much more to most of them than their ?sitcom character'” is the thing I object to. You’re speaking as an analyst – “I have examined this show, and these characters are merely X”. Saying ‘they can be seen as this’ is one thing, dismissing them as that and nothing more requires either too lax an examination to make the claim in the first place, or a deliberate ignoring of information.

I quibble with the categorical statement.

> you can?t paint Brittas as being some dark social commentary under the surface when it was nothing of the sort

I can paint it as CONTAINING those elements, since it blatantly did. Not as subtext, but relying on them for jokes and narrative beats to work. Again, it’s the categorical statement I take issue with…because it requires elements present on screen to be ignored in order for it to be true.

Again, though, I also think the term ‘mainstream’ is being hideously misused.

> Viewer perception is fact, good intentions or otherwise.

So when a viewer posts that Red Dwarf had nine series, cos she saw the ninth FOR SURE, that makes it a fact?

[Carlito]

No it doesn’t make it a true fact.

But to that person, who is SURE she saw a ninth series, to her there were 9 series of Red Dwarf. Unless she later researched it and concluded that she had been wrong all along, she will happily go about her existance paying no second thought to the fact that Red Dwarf was a show that ran for 9 seasons.

Perception is always fact. If somebody perceives something in a certain way, to them that is the way it is. It doesn’t even matter if they are completely and utterly wrong. In their obliviousness what they BELIEVE to be true IS true, in as much as it is true to them.

If that woman died tomorrow, she would die not doubting her ‘knowledge’ that Red Dwarf had a ninth series. Even though she was wrong.

[Carlito]

And I never said I analyzed Brittas, because I never have. I have watched it though, and have been rewatching it fairly recently on G.O.L.D. too (it’s on at Stupid am everyday, but that’s what Sky+ is for) so it is pretty fresh in the mind as well.

I haven’t seen every single episode EVER, but I am extremely hard pressed to remember a time when Brittas ever relied on any kind of deep (or even skindeep) social commentary, and only very rarely dark themes, so sorry if we’re not on the same page here, but if you remember any specific instances off the top of your head that would jog my memory, I would quite happily hold my hands up. I just don’t think either of these elements are strong or relevant enough to base a defence of the show on.

Not withstanding the fact that you don’t even need to defend the show, as I wasn’t knocking it… I said I liked it… I just said it didn’t have a lot of meat to it, which I stand by, and which doesn’t mean the show is bad. (In its prime, anyway).

[Author]

Replies