im alan partridge and the dreaded laughter track
gerard c
whyyyyyyyowhyowhyowhyowhy do they insist on ruining programmes with this
terrible incessant screaming and cheering.
it has ruined totally what was the best sit-com of last year, ignoring the
subtlety of the humour. who decided this should be done? surely not ianucci
or coogan?
anyway, i suggest that everyone else who found it annoying should write to
p...@bbc.co.uk and demand they show the rest of the series properly.
thanks for your time.
//gerard.
"erm, youth hostelling...... with chris eubank...... monkey tennis?..."
Rod Begbie
In article <01bd894c$203361c0$ac36...@bet9ar6.dial.pipex.com>, "gerard c" <gera...@usa.net> said:
> [Canned Laughter]
> it has ruined totally what was the best sit-com of last year, ignoring the
> subtlety of the humour. who decided this should be done? surely not ianucci
> or coogan?
I thought so too last year when it was first shown, but by the third
episode, I didn't notice the laughter at all.
> anyway, i suggest that everyone else who found it annoying should write to
> p...@bbc.co.uk and demand they show the rest of the series properly.
<snigger> Yep, cause Points Of View has *that* much power.
> "erm, youth hostelling...... with chris eubank...... monkey tennis?..."
Smell the cheese, you mother!
Rod.
--
Rod Begbie @ http://www.begbie.com |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "We're all going to heaven, lads. Waaaay!"
| -- Father Dougal McGuire
Ian Miller
"gerard c" <gera...@usa.net> writes:
> whyyyyyyyowhyowhyowhyowhy do they insist on ruining programmes with this
> terrible incessant screaming and cheering.
>
> it has ruined totally what was the best sit-com of last year, ignoring the
> subtlety of the humour. who decided this should be done? surely not ianucci
> or coogan?
>
> anyway, i suggest that everyone else who found it annoying should write to
> p...@bbc.co.uk and demand they show the rest of the series properly.
The laughter was THERE in the *original* showing. Yes, people did complain to
the newsgroup last year about it... but what I want to know is... how on
*earth* do you know what it would be like *without* the so-called
"laughter track"?
What makes you think it would be *better* without the laughter track?
How many sitcoms are there without some kind of laughter on them, whether
it be "canned", on a so-called "laughter track", or a live studio audience?
Alan Patridge has never EVER *existed* without some kind of audience
participation element, whether it be the original radio series or the
original TV series (KMKYWAP). There has ALWAYS been laughter associated
with Alan Partridge, so what on EARTH makes you think that removing the
laughter track will somehow turn an already brilliant show into some kind
of post-modern art-house masterpiece?
The only sitcom I can think of that doesn't either have a live audience,
or some kind of "laughter track" is the "Larry Sanders Show" -- and this
isn't even *funny*. In some bits of LSS you are left wondering whether
a joke has been cracked or not... with a show this poor, you just can't
tell when you're *supposed* to laugh. At least if it had a "laughter track"
there'd be some kind of clue as to when you were supposed to laugh.
Laughter is infectious you know. C'mon, everyone knows that.
cheers,
ian
--
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| ian miller; research student; |"Train with both heart and soul with- |
| learning agents and systems group; | out worrying about theory. Very often |
| university of aberdeen, scotland. | a man who lacks the essential quality |
+-------------------------------------+ of deadly seriousness will take |
| imi...@csd.abdn.ac.uk | refuge in theory." |
| http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~imiller/ | -- Funakoshi Gichin |
+-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
Ian Miller
"gerard c" <gera...@usa.net> writes:
> eeeeekkkk. it *is* different from last time, it just sounds wrong.
> anyone else back me up on this?
Sorry Gerard... no-one is going to back you up on this one, because
you are wrong, there WAS laughter on the original showing, I remember
it *distinctly* because so many people complained about it on
rec.arts.tv.uk.misc and this newsgroup, and I had to 'defend' it back then.
> if a sit-com is any good it shouldnt need prompts in for when to laugh. the
> larry sanders show is a case in point.... [:@)]
It's the *only* case in point (though it *isn't* good ;-)
> there is an enormous difference between kmkywap and iap, kmky was
> fictitious chat-show, there was an obvious audience there, laughing at
> alan... in iap he isnt on show, its the unfortunacy of his life we are
> laughying at. there isnt a crowd of people in his rover 800, or in the
> lobby of the linton travel tavern. this sort of thing just seems wrong in
> these situations, where it plainly isnt been taped in a stuido.
Ok, I do agree with this... it was supposed to be a sort of fly-on-the-wall
documentary, and so laughter might be construed as intrusive in this
instance. *However*, it isn't *really* a fly-on-the-wall is it, unless of
course Alan allowed the cameras into his bedroom when he was attempting
to shag Pear Tree Production's secretary....
> yes, perhaps they should have a little red light n the top corner for when
> you're supposed to laugh. then, maybe you shouldnt be watching larry
> sanders if you cant understand it.
Larry Sanders brings a wry smile to my face when I know it is *attempting*
to be funny.
> | Laughter is infectious you know. C'mon, everyone knows that.
>
> yes, in real life. this clumsy fade-up/fade-down rent-a-laughter isnt
> infectious, just annoying.
Well, if you have no friends (like me ;-) and have to watch a sitcom by
yourself, then sometimes, I find, it can be quite disturbing to be
the only person in the room laughing raucously AND you miss some of the
lines too *anyway*, because you are laughing so hard. Or you should be.
Also, it isn't really the rent-a-laughter you imply: it's just an audience
watching a show, so it's just the same sound you would hear if you were
in a cinema watching the programme -- in which case you wouldn't have
a laughter track because it would be superfluous.
We went all through this the first time it was shown...
> someone please agree with me.
> did anyone tape it the first time around?
Nope... anyone who agrees with you is mad.
A simple trip to Dejanews proves my point:-
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=287478771
Dom McClane wrote on 06/11/1997:
>
> I watched the first 10 minutes and thoroughly enjoyed it, but I couldn't
> watch any more as the canned laughter really did not suit the programme and
> completely put me off.
>
> Coogan's Run didn't have canned laughter as I recall, and this series being
> full of the same dry humour doesn't work at all well with canned laughter.
> I hate canned laughter anyway, but added here it was about as welcome as it
> would be during MASH (on the time when they used to add it)
>
> Dom
So you see... the canned laughter was so *unobtrusive* before that you
even FORGOT it was there. So that *proves* you are wrong. You're going
to have a great big plate with some words on it, and a knife and fork...
... look, what I'm trying to say is, YOU'RE GONNA *EAT* YOUR WORDS.
alf
On 27 May 1998 08:50:14 GMT, "gerard c" <gera...@usa.net> wrote:
>whyyyyyyyowhyowhyowhyowhy do they insist on ruining programmes with this
>terrible incessant screaming and cheering.
Can we have some clarification on this, please? If anyone's got the
original series on video, could they have a quick look and clear this
up for us?
Ta
alf
Dom
In article <01bd8985$4a1e5740$ac36...@bet9ar6.dial.pipex.com>
"gerard c" <gera...@usa.net> writes:
>
>
>Ian Miller <imi...@csd.abdn.ac.uk> wrote in article
><n9d8czk...@csd.abdn.ac.uk>...
>
>| The laughter was THERE in the *original* showing. Yes, people did
>complain to
>| the newsgroup last year about it... but what I want to know is... how on
>| *earth* do you know what it would be like *without* the so-called
>| "laughter track"?
>
>anyone else back me up on this? the laughter seems to be drowning out some
>of the more subtle jokes, like the interactions between alan and the geodie
>character in the hotel.
It had the laughter track present in the first showing of this series and
I, and so many others, complained to Points of View. The complaint about it
got a mention on POV (not my complaint, but a few others) but the BBC saw fit
to do nothing about it.
>| What makes you think it would be *better* without the laughter track?
>
>arghhhhh.
Because "I'm Alan Partridge" succeeds on dry humour between a few individuals
or on his own, not with a TV audience as "Knowing Me Knowing You.." had, where
you expected to hear a TV audience because they were there.
>| How many sitcoms are there without some kind of laughter on them, whether
>| it be "canned", on a so-called "laughter track", or a live studio
>audience?
>
>if a sit-com is any good it shouldnt need prompts in for when to laugh. the
>larry sanders show is a case in point.... [:@)]
A few have gone without recently, and all have had a hand from Simon Nye,
namely: My Wonderful Life, How Do You Want Me? and The Last Salute.
With comedies full of raucous, unsubtle humour, you expect the laughter track,
but all of them would be a lot better without it, especially those which are
only mildly amusing, not laugh-out-loud as the canned laughter track would
have us believe (which in turn makes the mildly amusing programme an absolute
pain-in-the-arse to watch)
Imagine if films in the cinema, or on video, were given canned laughter. I
couldn't imagine that lasting long.
Dom
Game : Die By The Sword : http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/diesword.htm
DVD : Shawshank Redemption : http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/shaw.htm
Film : Deep Impact : http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/deep.htm
Game : Resident Evil 2 : http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/revil2.htm
Latest LD reviews: Escape from NY, Liar Liar, Fierce Creatures all linked from
the WS Video and Laserdisc lists at Sonicstate : http://www.sonicstate.com
McClane The Dominator - Journalist and aortic-valve operation survivor...
Email: mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk / Home: http://www.festive.demon.co.uk
gerard c
David J. Bodycombe <body...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<6khc6j$1rs$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
| I agree. They once did a feature-length episode of Only Fools and Horses
| without laughter from a studio audience and somehow it seemed a lot
colder
| and less enjoyable.
perhaps it made visible the holes in the writing.
if a programme has a strong enough script (as AIP) then the forced laughter
is unnecessary.
//gerard.
"the gay elements are zinc, potassium and....."
gerard c
""Ian" Miller" <imiller"@"csd.abdn.ac."uk">
"wrote" in "article" <n97m37k4j2.fsf@csd."abdn".ac.uk>...
| Sorry Gerard... no-one is going to back you up on this one, because
| you are wrong, there WAS laughter on the original showing, I remember
| it *distinctly* because so many people complained about it on
| rec.arts.tv.uk.misc and this newsgroup, and I had to 'defend' it back
then.
feck.
| It's the *only* case in point (though it *isn't* good ;-)
yes, well, no.
but that's irrelevant to this.
| Ok, I do agree with this... it was supposed to be a sort of
fly-on-the-wall
| documentary, and so laughter might be construed as intrusive in this
| instance. *However*, it isn't *really* a fly-on-the-wall is it, unless of
| course Alan allowed the cameras into his bedroom when he was attempting
| to shag Pear Tree Production's secretary....
and your definition of fly-on-the-wall is? either way, it doesnt deserve
the laughter, be it "real" or canned. should "airport" have laughter?
should "the day today" have had laughter? it is supposed to be *realistic*.
i should be able to sit my gran down in front of it and have her believe it
is real, the laughter denies this, it lowers it to the level of a "a prince
among men" or that thing with the orphaned kids and their grandparents.
| Larry Sanders brings a wry smile to my face when I know it is
*attempting*
| to be funny.
yes, well, you are obviously way above that.
| Well, if you have no friends (like me ;-) and have to watch a sitcom by
| yourself, then sometimes, I find, it can be quite disturbing to be
| the only person in the room laughing raucously AND you miss some of the
| lines too *anyway*, because you are laughing so hard. Or you should be.
hmmmmmmmm...... great justification there. maybe that's why they put it in.
| Also, it isn't really the rent-a-laughter you imply: it's just an
audience
| watching a show, so it's just the same sound you would hear if you were
| in a cinema watching the programme -- in which case you wouldn't have
| a laughter track because it would be superfluous.
but the levels are all wrong. it is too loud, and it fades in and out
clumsily.
| We went all through this the first time it was shown...
yes, dad.
| Nope... anyone who agrees with you is mad.
yes, dad. sorry, dad.
| A simple trip to Dejanews proves my point:-
| http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=287478771
sigh.
| So you see... the canned laughter was so *unobtrusive* before that you
| even FORGOT it was there. So that *proves* you are wrong. You're going
| to have a great big plate with some words on it, and a knife and fork...
no holes in that argument, then.
what are you saying, i have proven that the laughter is unobtrusive, by
complaining that it was obtrusive, by recognising it as more obtrusive now
than it was last year, when i thought it wasnt obtrusive?
| ... look, what I'm trying to say is, YOU'RE GONNA *EAT* YOUR WORDS.
yes, yes i am.
| cheers,
thanks!
| ian
..gerard.
"email signatures are the work of the devil" - the devil
just to reaffirm.....
this isnt intended as an argument over larry sanders, religion, ian miller
being my father etc.
i merely said, and repeat, that the laughter is more noticeable and
annoying now, in the repeat, *to me*.
gerard c
Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<896323...@festive.demon.co.uk>...
| It had the laughter track present in the first showing of this series and
| I, and so many others, complained to Points of View. The complaint about
it
| got a mention on POV (not my complaint, but a few others) but the BBC saw
fit
| to do nothing about it.
thankyou. as i have explained, i (for whatever reason, mental or physical)
didn't notice the laughter on the first showing or IAP, and did notice it
and found it very annoying on the repeat. i know now that the laughter was
there in the original, and that this was addressed here at the time.
| Because "I'm Alan Partridge" succeeds on dry humour between a few
individuals
| or on his own, not with a TV audience as "Knowing Me Knowing You.." had,
where
| you expected to hear a TV audience because they were there.
i still believe the laughter to be unnecessary and patronising.
| A few have gone without recently, and all have had a hand from Simon Nye,
| namely: My Wonderful Life, How Do You Want Me? and The Last Salute.
| With comedies full of raucous, unsubtle humour, you expect the laughter
track,
| but all of them would be a lot better without it, especially those which
are
| only mildly amusing, not laugh-out-loud as the canned laughter track
would
| have us believe (which in turn makes the mildly amusing programme an
absolute
| pain-in-the-arse to watch)
quite. when a programme is as strong and subtle in writing as IAP then the
laughter isnt necessary. and the "medium" of IAP made the laughter doubly
unsuitable.
| Imagine if films in the cinema, or on video, were given canned laughter.
I
| couldn't imagine that lasting long.
well, no.
or if some of the other iannuci/coogan/baynham/schneider programmes had had
canned laughter, it would have ruined them, just as its spoilt my enjoyment
of IAP. imagine adding it to the day today or brass eye, which outside
their differences are all spoofs, they should all be relatively believable
as real life.
thankyou.
gerard.
"this is the news"
Bob Mallett
Ian Miller <imi...@csd.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi,
I went to the filming of the last episode of the show so I can shed a
little bit of light on some of it.
>> if a sit-com is any good it shouldnt need prompts in for when to laugh. the
>> larry sanders show is a case in point.... [:@)]
I agree that prompts should not be given.
>> there is an enormous difference between kmkywap and iap, kmky was
>> fictitious chat-show, there was an obvious audience there, laughing at
>> alan... in iap he isnt on show, its the unfortunacy of his life we are
>> laughying at. there isnt a crowd of people in his rover 800, or in the
>> lobby of the linton travel tavern. this sort of thing just seems wrong in
>> these situations, where it plainly isnt been taped in a stuido.
The linton travel tavern was a set in the BBC studios, including the
lift that goes nowhere. The outdoor and lap dancing scenes were
filmed in advance and show to the audience on tv screens to help the
flow, and to get the laughter.
>Ok, I do agree with this... it was supposed to be a sort of fly-on-the-wall
>documentary, and so laughter might be construed as intrusive in this
>instance. *However*, it isn't *really* a fly-on-the-wall is it, unless of
>course Alan allowed the cameras into his bedroom when he was attempting
>to shag Pear Tree Production's secretary....
>
>> yes, perhaps they should have a little red light n the top corner for when
>> you're supposed to laugh. then, maybe you shouldnt be watching larry
>> sanders if you cant understand it.
It was one of the only shows that I have seen without a floor manager
jumping up and down telling people to clap and laugh.
>Also, it isn't really the rent-a-laughter you imply: it's just an audience
>watching a show, so it's just the same sound you would hear if you were
>in a cinema watching the programme -- in which case you wouldn't have
>a laughter track because it would be superfluous.
Indeed I was part of that baying crowd.
The one odd part was that the ending to the final show that I saw
being filmed was not show, but cut. It may be that it is going to be
used as a trailer for another series.
---
Bob Mallett
http://homepages.enterprise.net/bmallett
Mark Stevens
On 27 May 1998 14:40:10 +0100, Ian Miller <imi...@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
wrote:
>How many sitcoms are there without some kind of laughter on them, whether
>it be "canned", on a so-called "laughter track", or a live studio audience?
M*A*S*H springs to mind.
>Alan Patridge has never EVER *existed* without some kind of audience
>participation element, whether it be the original radio series or the
>original TV series...
I think the original poster had seen Coogan's Run, where we had six
slices of Coogan humour with no laughter track -- and they worked very
well. Well, some better than others.
/\/)ark
David Roy
:>Here, we agree. The Larry Sanders Show is a rancid sack of cut-off
:>cocks. Bring back Garry Shandling's Show, say I.
:>
:Hey, I remember that. Used to watch it on KCPQ-13 sometime in the late
:80's. Did it get shown over here on terrestrial, or (being Fox) was it
:bunged exclusively to shattelite?
Definitely shown on UK terrestrial some time in the late eighties, with
laughs from the live studio audience. (They kept being shown on-screen, so
you knew that they were there.) Either BBC2 or C4, and probably BBC2.
David
Paul Rhodes
Ian Miller <imi...@csd.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>*However*, it isn't *really* a fly-on-the-wall is it, unless of
>course Alan allowed the cameras into his bedroom when he was attempting
>to shag Pear Tree Production's secretary....
As Alan himself explained to the audience before the recording of the
first episode, it was a studio recreation of his real life. But we
weren't supposed to let on. Oops.
Paul
Chris Heathcote
>>Here, we agree. The Larry Sanders Show is a rancid sack of cut-off
>>cocks. Bring back Garry Shandling's Show, say I.
>>
>Hey, I remember that. Used to watch it on KCPQ-13 sometime in the late
>80's. Did it get shown over here on terrestrial, or (being Fox) was it
>bunged exclusively to shattelite?
It was shown Beeb1, about 5pm, Saturday afternoon (ages ago). V v good,
but I think Larry Sanders is just as good if not better (although it
took me a whole series of watching without laughing once to get into
it).
c.
--
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|chris (a) deaddodo.com http://www.deaddodo.com ICQ: 6803574|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Da Bunny speak Da Truth |
| http://www.undergroundlondon.com/bunny/ |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
chris harrison
David Roy wrote:
> Definitely shown on UK terrestrial some time in the late eighties, with
> laughs from the live studio audience. (They kept being shown on-screen, so
> you knew that they were there.) Either BBC2 or C4, and probably BBC2.
BBC2, on a Sunday afternoon if memory serves.
--
chris harrison.
ic-parc, william penney laboratory, imperial college, london, sw7 2az.
http://www.icparc.ic.ac.uk/~cah1/
Peter Thomas
"gerard c" <gera...@usa.net> wrote:
<snips!>
>| Ok, I do agree with this... it was supposed to be a sort of
>fly-on-the-wall
>| documentary, and so laughter might be construed as intrusive in this
>| instance. *However*, it isn't *really* a fly-on-the-wall is it, unless of
>| course Alan allowed the cameras into his bedroom when he was attempting
>| to shag Pear Tree Production's secretary....
>and your definition of fly-on-the-wall is? either way, it doesnt deserve
>the laughter, be it "real" or canned. should "airport" have laughter?
>should "the day today" have had laughter?
<shudders!> Ooooh, that would have been AWFUL.
Even worse, would be Simpsons... I couldn't watch if they did that!
>it is supposed to be *realistic*.
>i should be able to sit my gran down in front of it and have her believe it
>is real, the laughter denies this, it lowers it to the level of a "a prince
>among men" or that thing with the orphaned kids and their grandparents.
Er, but it's not a fly-on-the-wall documentary.
If it is, how do you explain Alan's fantasizing dreams where he's in
leather, doing lap dancing for TV execs?
Altho I do agree, that the laughter isn't needed. I think it's
quite...moribund!
--
pete {at} prodge . demon . co . uk
PETER THOMAS www.prodge.demon.co.uk
Dom
In article <356c79bd...@news.demon.co.uk>
ye...@right.com (Hey! Student) writes:
>Here, we agree. The Larry Sanders Show is a rancid sack of cut-off
>cocks. Bring back Garry Shandling's Show, say I.
>
Garry called me up and asked if I could write his theme song. I'm almost
through it now, how do you like it so far? :)
Dom
Game : Die By The Sword : http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/diesword.htm
DVD : Shawshank Redemption : http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/shaw.htm
Film : Deep Impact : http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/deep.htm
Latest DVD reviews: Batman & Robin, Disclosure, Fargo, Dead Man Walking and
latest LD reviews: Escape from NY, Liar Liar, Fierce Creatures all linked from
gerard c
Mark Stevens <ma...@sonance.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<3570be27...@news.demon.co.uk>...
| I think the original poster had seen Coogan's Run, where we had six
| slices of Coogan humour with no laughter track -- and they worked very
| well. Well, some better than others.
eek. that might pretty well explain it.
erm, did they use the same set for gareth cheesman's hotelroom as for
alan's in IAP?
thanks.
...gerard cassidy.
"i've never spent much time in school, but i've tought ladies plenty,
it's true i hire my body out for pay, ah hey-hey"
- the fall guy.
Shirley Tindle
chris harrison wrote in message <356D5AB1...@icparc.ic.ac.uk>...
that "It's Gary Shandling's Show" was transmitted on
>BBC2, on a Sunday afternoon if memory serves.
>
>--
>chris harrison.
>ic-parc, william penney laboratory, imperial college, london, sw7 2az.
>http://www.icparc.ic.ac.uk/~cah1/
I seem to remember that it was shown after "Sunday Grandstand" in the 6.40pm
slot, and was often shown before "News Review" or "The Money Programme". It
sat very awkwardly in that slot!
John
Simon Tyers
David Roy wrote:
>
> :>Here, we agree. The Larry Sanders Show is a rancid sack of cut-off
> :>cocks. Bring back Garry Shandling's Show, say I.
> :Hey, I remember that. Used to watch it on KCPQ-13 sometime in the late
> :80's. Did it get shown over here on terrestrial, or (being Fox) was it
> :bunged exclusively to shattelite?
>
> laughs from the live studio audience. (They kept being shown on-screen, so
> you knew that they were there.) Either BBC2 or C4, and probably BBC2.
It's currently showing on Paramount Comedy Channel.
--
"The Internet fans are the scariest" (Lauren Laverne)
Simon Tyers : hc9...@dmu.ac.uk
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Palms/6687/
Mas
David Richards <ne...@dv-8.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Gary Shandling's show]
>I don't know if it's ever been on 'normal' tv, but it was being shown on the
>Paramount [cable/satellite] Channel about an hour ago.
and many years before that it was shown on Bravo before they were taken over.
M
--
"You come to me with yesterdays', tomorrow. You say you think it
looked like rain. You tell me about the mess your hairdo, is in.
(But) I think you're crazy all the same." n.ma...@coventry.ac.uk