Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:02:32 BST 2000:

(Actual details of payment, credit and so on to be worked out with the individual concerned. I'm not saying it's going to be easy. And no pretending some joke on last night's show was yours and you deserve your cash. It won't wash.)

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Simon Brighty, yes the very same.' on Wed Oct 18 00:12:52 BST 2000:

It's still shit with a capital shit though.

You're trying TOO HARD. At least try the routines out before you record them. Ever thought of just putting one show out on a Friday night. Ah, bit like the FRIDAY ARMISTICE then?????!!!!! Maybe don't use scripts written by local sixth formers might be one idea.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Wed Oct 18 00:15:03 BST 2000:

One piece of advice, get rid of the Style Wankers (awful), Bulla (awful, and I can't actually see any jokes), Waugh on Sport (cringingly awful), and that Bayer Tapestry thing (AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL. I can't stand that Tapestry thing, its the laziest piece of cack I've ever seen, it's basically doing the same thing as about 100 other crap comedians do. Ooh the tellytubbies right? Yeah the tellytubbies? They're really drug barons, that one with the hat? He's a pimp! That's his pimp hat! And in that bag he has, he's carrying a gun!
It's basically that but with the Royal Family swearing.. ooh hilarious. Ooh hello I'm the queen mother, I'm saying the word cock, how subversively hilarious.)
And I highly doubt each show is written in a day, it's obviously done with lots of mixtures of jokes compiled over a fair week or two. It's hardly topical, I don't really see any jokes based on current news items, just calling Anne Widdecomb ugly is hardly topical.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Justin on Wed Oct 18 00:21:57 BST 2000:

I know this joke probably had nothing to do with you personally, A Bit, but I thought the Bulla section where he basically took the piss out of the Kenneth Noye witness who was shot dead was a bit much. Not only a member of the public (not a public figure then) but also someone who, unlike the Royal Family, genuinely can't answer back. Was the 11ocs actually proud of this routine? Serious question.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:26:03 BST 2000:

Thank you indeed for your well thought out contributions to this debate.

As a writer on the show may I correct some of your incorrect assumptions:

1) Steven, We are not involved with the VT items

2) The show IS written in a day whether you may believe it or not, which leads me on to...

>At least try the routines out before you record them. Ever thought of just putting one show out on a Friday night. Ah, bit like the FRIDAY ARMISTICE then?????!!!!!

3) Simon, as the show is written the day of transmission, we CANNOT, as you suggest, 'try out the routines'.

4) Talkback is contractually obligated by Channel 4 to produce a show 3 times a week and as a result we CANNOT decide to do it once a week, much as we would all like to, believe me. To do so would free us up a lot more to work on the material before it goes out, and would produce a lot more satisfying show for us, and for the audience.

5) There IS a topical show on once a week. It's called Have I Got News For You. And it's on the same network as Armistice. Yet no-one seems to mind. So the idea of doing another one is, I'm sure, not something that would overly disturb Channel 4.

I am happy to correct your inaccuracies, but this would be unneccesary if you did not MAKE ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE WRONG. Okay?

Anyway, neither of you had anything to say about my suggestion, so I suggest you continue your posts on one of the many other threads dedicated to this show and leave this clear for people who might like to respond to what I have to say sensibly.

Thank you.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:31:19 BST 2000:

>I know this joke probably had nothing to do with you personally, A Bit, but I thought the Bulla section where he basically took the piss out of the Kenneth Noye witness who was shot dead was a bit much. Not only a member of the public (not a public figure then) but also someone who, unlike the Royal Family, genuinely can't answer back. Was the 11ocs actually proud of this routine? Serious question.

Justin, didn't see your post before I responded to the others. Apologies. You've always managed to have some sort of sensible view on things in the past, with or without added vitriol and venom, and I at least respect that.

Still, to answer your question: the Bulla pieces are all the work of one Ricky Grover and are inserted into the show irrespective of us as writers. I cannot tell you his opinion of the reference to Kenneth Noye. What I can tell you is that Ricky is in no way 'a mockney' as he was accused of being in a previous post on this forum. He is a born and bred East End ex-boxer who is part of that whole world. He is apparently related to someone who knows Noye well, and what he chooses to do on that subject is his own business and, given what happened to the man who gave evidence against Noye, his own lookout.

Sorry I can't be more forthcoming.

ABOT11OCS

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:31:21 BST 2000:

>I know this joke probably had nothing to do with you personally, A Bit, but I thought the Bulla section where he basically took the piss out of the Kenneth Noye witness who was shot dead was a bit much. Not only a member of the public (not a public figure then) but also someone who, unlike the Royal Family, genuinely can't answer back. Was the 11ocs actually proud of this routine? Serious question.

Justin, didn't see your post before I responded to the others. Apologies. You've always managed to have some sort of sensible view on things in the past, with or without added vitriol and venom, and I at least respect that.

Still, to answer your question: the Bulla pieces are all the work of one Ricky Grover and are inserted into the show irrespective of us as writers. I cannot tell you his opinion of the reference to Kenneth Noye. What I can tell you is that Ricky is in no way 'a mockney' as he was accused of being in a previous post on this forum. He is a born and bred East End ex-boxer who is part of that whole world. He is apparently related to someone who knows Noye well, and what he chooses to do on that subject is his own business and, given what happened to the man who gave evidence against Noye, his own lookout.

Sorry I can't be more forthcoming.

ABOT11OCS

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:31:53 BST 2000:

(Pressed RETURN twice. What an arse.)

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Wed Oct 18 00:34:59 BST 2000:

Well SORRY, I was just making a suggestion to improve the show, how the hell are the VT items not controlled by the show? I don't think Sarah Alexanders makes up all that crap in Waugh on sport herself, so supposedly one of you lot write it.. so explain yourself. And I am sure one of you writers does all that bayer tapestry crap too, it's crap, so either make it good, or get rid of it. You are as much out of your depth as anybody, I doubt seriously that hardly anybody is going to submit material, because frankly its basically prostitution of wit, and I doubt getting 5 quid for getting a a little 2 line joke onto the 11 o clock show is much of enticement, not that the 5 isnt enticing, its the fact its going to appear on the show is the repellant. I think you are acting a bit too innocent, you have at least some control over the VT items, unless you are one of the script writers who is the least involved with anything in the show, my advice is get out as soon as you can therefore.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:41:11 BST 2000:

Oh Steven, don't get petulant, but you are so, so wrong. The show is written by a group of writers employed to come in three or four days a week and write the material that happens in the studio. The rest of the show (VT segments) is written and performed by the people contracted to do those pieces. The job of quality control in these cases lies solely with the producer and assisant producers. Nowhere in my job description am I given the power to go to the producer and say, 'The Windsor Tapestry is shit, take it out.' Yes, perhaps I could add to then end of that 'or I quit' but to be honest I don't hate any of the VTs enough for that to happen.

Don't call me naive. You are naive about how shows like this works. I work on one. I know.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:44:18 BST 2000:

And submission of material for use rewarded by payment and credit is not prostitution of wit. It's called earning a living as a writer.

And the money is more than a fiver a line. Sorry to disappoint you, but whatever you may think of it in other areas, the 11 O'Clock Show doesn't fuck it's writers over when it comes to payment.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:44:58 BST 2000:

(Of course that should be 'its'. Grammar is important to me.)

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:49:24 BST 2000:

>Don't call me naive. You are naive about how shows like this works. I work on one. I know.

Hold on, you didn't. You just said I was acting innocent. But the same applies.

(I've discovered how important it is to not give anyone here the chance to be venomously pedantic.)

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Caroline' on Wed Oct 18 00:50:23 BST 2000:

My favourite part is the way the only person responding to 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show'
is 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show'.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:51:33 BST 2000:

Oh for god's sake...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Prisoner #93A234 Simon Adebisi' on Wed Oct 18 00:52:09 BST 2000:

A hotmail address?

You're taking the piss!

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:54:42 BST 2000:

I don't understand. Would you like the actual email address of the show? Why would you think I would give that to you to abuse? A hotmail address allows people who are genuinely interested to contribute, and people who want to take the piss to be ignored.

If you think I'm wasting my time here, fine. If not, do something. I don't think it's a totally futile concept.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Wed Oct 18 00:54:58 BST 2000:

Oh great, critisising my grammar now, on a web board, where the object is to get as much information down in as little effort. Christ, I think I even spelt it's correctly throughout all my postings apart from one sentence where I forgot to articulatedly move my finger up to the right button unaware of the gross error this would bring about, thus destroying my entire argument and opinion so that the amazingly clever 11 o clock show person can name me for the fool I am, I am impressed. Grammar isn't much of a concern when I'm typing out these hurried responses, especially late at night. I'm sorry if I don't know how crap programs like the 11 o clock show work, obviously you were once naive in this area or you wouldn't of decided to work for them. And actually I said it was a fiver for two lines.. so that proves a hole in your argument about as much as your points disprove mine. The obvious thing is to not be topical, the show is barely topical anyway, so it's not much effort, jokes are funny, the people in government aren't, well they are but they basically funny in themselves and therefore need no skill to make up crap jokes about them.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 00:57:28 BST 2000:

Dear oh dear, Steven, you really are paranoid. The 'its' reference was to MY OWN POST, not yours. Apologies if you thought I was getting at you about it, but you seem to have proved my point about venomous pedantry in your response.

Let's just calm this down a little.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Caroline' on Wed Oct 18 00:57:33 BST 2000:

Alternatively, post the jokes on the back of a stuck down envelope!

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Prisoner #93A234 Simon Adebisi' on Wed Oct 18 00:59:08 BST 2000:

OK, OK, I wasn't entirely serious.

Just trying to establish that you were...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:00:07 BST 2000:

Incidentally, you are essentially right about topicality being not much of a source of good comedy. Good comedy about current affairs comes from satire. Unfortunately, Channel 4 and Talkback have decided to make a thrice-weekly TOPICAL show. If I could change it, I would, but in the end the best way to deal with it is to do a different programme, and who knows, perhaps this will happen when this series ends.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Wed Oct 18 01:01:05 BST 2000:

Alternatively, let's start up a charity and raise money to send the cast and writers of the 11 o clock show 30 year old scripts of Monty Python so they can learn something. Oh yeah.. and there were only 6 of them, and they wrote all their shows, and actually appeared as the cast as well!

On a more serious note, I actually hated Sarah Alexander in Couplings as well, and also I thought Smack the Pony was crap, both series, so I'm not just picking on the 11OCS.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Caroline' on Wed Oct 18 01:02:08 BST 2000:

Methinks 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' doth protest too much.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:02:58 BST 2000:

>Alternatively, let's start up a charity and raise money to send the cast and writers of the 11 o clock show 30 year old scripts of Monty Python so they can learn something. Oh yeah.. and there were only 6 of them, and they wrote all their shows, and actually appeared as the cast as well!

>On a more serious note, I actually hated Sarah Alexander in Couplings as well, and also I thought Smack the Pony was crap, both series, so I'm not just picking on the 11OCS.

How does making it personal make it better?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:04:24 BST 2000:

>Methinks 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' doth protest too much.
>

Methinks it's quite hard to find people willing to have some sort of sensible discussion, Caroline.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Wed Oct 18 01:06:12 BST 2000:

We ask for a good comedy show, you don't deliver.
You ask for for charitable donations of material and argument trying to verge from abuse, we don't deliver.

You work out who's pushing his luck..

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Caroline' on Wed Oct 18 01:10:13 BST 2000:

I just think it's funny that someone who writes for a comedy show that no-one on this forum (or anyone else, for that matter) thinks is funny, is asking these same people to write for the show, and expects people not to take the piss.
Too many clauses, but you get the point.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:15:11 BST 2000:

I'm not asking YOU for donations of material, Steven. I'm giving anyone who wants it the opportunity to try out their assumptions of quality concerning this show. If you don't want to be involved, that's absolutely fine, and I don't think any less of you for it.

I'm not here to be defensive, argumentative or petulant. I'm not here to justify being paid to produce a show you may not like. Writing the 11 O'Clock Show is my current job, and people more important than me in this industry decide whether they think I am doing it satisfactorily. In the end, yes, you decide whether the end product is satisfactory but I don't have to defend my personal employment to you, just as a postman doesn't have to defend his job to you -- if a letter fails to reach you, you wouldn't expect to complain to him, you'd complain to the company that employed him. If you really feel the show should be taken off, complain (though I would advise you to do so in a less hot-headed manner) to Channel 4.

Does that make any sense? (rereads) Yes, I think so.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Wed Oct 18 01:18:15 BST 2000:

>>I'm not asking YOU for donations of material, Steven.

If you read my two line post I think you'd notice it features the collective word WE, meaning the forum as a group. I myself don't consider your offer at all, I'm just what do YOU expect when you deliver US a turd on a silver platter, and then ask for charity in return.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:22:36 BST 2000:

Where did you ever get the idea that being paid for written material is charity?

I feel like you're just being argumentative for the sake of it. Perhaps you're bored. It is 1.30 in the morning after all. I should go to bed anyway. I have to be back at work at 9 to churn out more nonsense that you can despise. It's a living.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Wed Oct 18 01:25:45 BST 2000:

>>I have to be back at work at 9 to churn out more nonsense that you can despise. It's a living.

Haha, so you do have a sense of humour. You didn't say you were going to use anything you got, so it is charity. And I'm sure even if something isn't used it might be inspiration from other material I'm sure.
Concerning me going to bed, yes I shall soon, but I am currently downloading music and stuff and will turn off me pc as soon as thats finished, this is just pointless folly to keep me from being entirely board in the meanwhile.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:27:52 BST 2000:

Well I hope you enjoyed it.

I genuinely do mean it though. If anyone wants to have a go at contributing, feel free. This is an experiment, not a way of getting free material of inspiration. And if we use something of yours I'll see you get paid, even if I have to do it myself.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:30:51 BST 2000:

Hold on, I see what you mean: why should you contribute on the off chance that we might use something and pay you?

Absolutely right. But if you think you can do better, that shouldn't be a problem. It's a rule of comedy: better jokes go in a script ahead of less good ones. If you're stuffs better it gets used. If it isn't it doesn't. That's how comedy writing works if you're freelance. Something I was for four years.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'The Left Banke' on Wed Oct 18 01:30:53 BST 2000:

But WHY do you have to defend it? As I have said many times before, when you're dealing with television, you're delaing with a medium that instantly caters for every imaginable audience category whether you like it or not. Chances are that the sort of people who frequent this forum, being cynical admirers of often very extreme and experimental comedy (and music and films, for that matter) are not going to like something that trades in shock value and attempts to cater for the broadest comedy audience possible, just as uptight middle class people are not going to like it either. You are never going to convince any of us, so why are you trying? We can hardly be damaging your reputation or viewing figures, so what exactly has got you so worried?

And one further question - you are an 11 OCS writer. Are you the one who wrote that pathetic joke about Dudley Moore's progressive brain disorder. No offence, but if you were, then I wish to hear no more from your rancid mouth.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:33:51 BST 2000:

You need to read back a bit: the team behind this series is new. The Dudley Moore joke was last series. Don't blame me.

As far as 'why am I defending the show' goes, I'm not. If you read the first post in this thread it's got nothing to do with defending the show, and every one since has been a response to a comment from someone else. I'm not defending, I'm informing.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:35:37 BST 2000:

Goodnight.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'The Left Banke' on Wed Oct 18 01:36:57 BST 2000:

Informing.

The implication being that you are right and we are wrong. Hmmmmmm.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:39:55 BST 2000:

Oh please don't read so much into small words. It's late, it's hard to be semantically accurate.

Inform, in the sense of correcting mis-apprehensions that is all. So yes, every *fact* I have given you about the 11OCS on this thread so far is right and was given in response to an assumption that was wrong. Anything else is opinion which you can take or leave.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Wed Oct 18 01:40:41 BST 2000:

Go to bed.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:41:43 BST 2000:

Okay.

(Ah fuck, I've done it again. I just can't leave this sodding forum, can I?)

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:44:17 BST 2000:

Oh, and Steven, The Left Banke and Anonymous: you're all the same person. And don't deny it, because I KNOW.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'The Left Banke' on Wed Oct 18 01:45:11 BST 2000:

I'm no Steven.

"My life is one long lazy day"

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Wed Oct 18 01:46:42 BST 2000:

Why do all your posts have the same IP address then?

But enough of this. It really is time for bed.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Charlie Brooker on Wed Oct 18 02:30:21 BST 2000:

This is amusing. "A Bit Of..." makes consistently reasonable, well-argued postings, yet a few of you are still intent on knocking him / her, like particularly self-conscious sheep. It took genuine nerve for ABOT11OCS to make those postings in the face of universal dismssal, but the moaners choose to recognise that bravery with a slew of easy jibes. Fine, go on. Claim to care about comedy all you like. Carry on carping on about how it doesn't measure up to your expectations. And what do you actually do about it? Squat on your thumb inside a bubble of delusional superiority, doing absolutely Fuck All.

I've been away, and haven't actually seen the all-new 11OCS yet, but as a writer on previous series, (hate me NOW) I can confirm that some of you don't know what the yipes you're talking about. Not about some of the more inexcusable content, which only a fool would defend, but about the process by which such shit arrives on screen.

You have every right to object to the show's content, to find it pitiful, offensive, or whatever. But the fact of the matter is, unless you've worked on the programme, you don't understand the situation behind the scenes, and therefore the moment you start to speculate about the mindset of those who do, you're on shaky ground. To all who imply they could write funnier material under the same circumstances, yet when offered an opportunity to prove so, do nothing: go and fuck yourselves, cowards.

THIS, in my experience is what it's like working on the 11OCS:

The core problem: the "three times a week" format is deeply flawed. Yes, it *would* be better if the show was on once a week. But it isn't. And no-one working on the show could change that now.

Previous series had a second, often more significant flaw: certain powerful elements were intent on aiming the programme squarely at the lowest common denominator; a fictional audience of drunken halfwits. You're told, by your employers, to reshape and rewrite material until it meets their satisfaction. Individual writers are powerless to argue against this, particularly when faced with such tight daily deadlines. Therefore you are effectively forced into a situation whereby you write to order -- a soul-destroying fucktrek through Misery Canyon. The only rational response is to leave, which is what many eventually did.

The production regime -- ultimately responsible for defining the show's content -- has since changed. Judging by comments on this forum, the new team has been attempting to avoid the errors of the past, yet is still scuppered by the basic impossibility of creating a thrice-weekly show of this nature.

I'm not suggesting for one moment you should tune in and watch a programme you hate. But to stand around piling dimwitted sarcasm upon an insider who seems genuinely willing to entertain your views is small-minded in the extreme.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 18 08:06:05 BST 2000:

I've just got into work and seen this strand.

I didn't see the show last night, I was too tired and have to be up early. As I've said before, I don't mind the new ones I've seen as much as I did the old ones.

I think it's great that "Bitoftheshow" has made his offer, I don't think he deserves the abuse he gets on this strand, and if I ever think of any topical jokes I'll send them to you.

Thnakyou for your time.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 18 08:38:55 BST 2000:

If anyone's going to have a crack at this, in view of the current news I'd suggest doing the following topics instead:

- U2 getting their latest no.1

- Anthea Turner's autobiography published

- Beech in trouble on The Bill

Others to follow when I've seen one of today's papers. I've tried, but I don't know enough about the subjects of those 3 stories to think of anything funny about them.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 18 08:40:44 BST 2000:

Also have a go at the current storyline of Eastenders, whatever it is.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 18 08:42:31 BST 2000:

Someone gave the Queen a marijuana plant the other day. But that's an old story, and haven't they covered it already?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Wed Oct 18 09:09:07 BST 2000:

Some of us ARE doing something about it. It's just that we don't have to write for 11OCS to prove that we are.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Ewar Woowar on Wed Oct 18 09:29:43 BST 2000:

Bit: where was I misogynous? Explain.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Squidy' on Wed Oct 18 09:38:48 BST 2000:

Maybe we should send lines in. Some of the stuff on this forum is much funnier than T11OCS.

Although on the night it will be read by somebody with no sense of comedy














timing.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By TJ on Wed Oct 18 09:44:58 BST 2000:

I'm with Ewar here - if you look misogynist up in the dictionary, then how can a woman posibly be misogynist towards another woman???

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Squidy' on Wed Oct 18 09:46:25 BST 2000:

Seriously, it's good to have someone involved in the production of T11OCS getting involved and arguing sensibly rather than just saying 'why don't you fuck off and die, you mong.' It makes a change.

That's what Jim Yoakum should have done!
(Made a sensible arguement, that is, not fuck off and die)

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 18 10:00:33 BST 2000:

I still say they should just have a 5-minute stand-up slot, instead of interviewing a stand-up. Saves having to write a block of script, and there'd be loads who'd do it, despite what they say/think of the show.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Wed Oct 18 10:01:31 BST 2000:

Just to tell A bit of the 11 ocs guy that I was none of the people he said I was, all my posts are under this name, I had gone to bed after my last post and why would I bother using fake names? It's not like I'm scared to use this one if I take the piss out of the 11ocs, it's not really hard.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 18 10:26:34 BST 2000:

Paxman getting sent an Enigma machine. That's another one to cover.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Ewar Woowar on Wed Oct 18 10:29:17 BST 2000:

TJ: I've said this before (ages ago, I think it was the Mark Lamarr thread) but misogyny in women is common and can be far worse than misogyny in men. However, I do not think my comments about Sarah Alexander were misogynist.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By TJ on Wed Oct 18 10:32:43 BST 2000:

That's the point I was making: neither do I!

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 18 10:34:44 BST 2000:

I can imagine a 5-minute Rory Bremner routine about JP using it to decipher the utterances of Alistair Campbell and other New Labour mouthpieces (who virtually everyone outside politics have never heard of). However what is required is a simple one-liner.

Is it true that anyone in Britain still has trouble getting C5? Or are any of the various satellite/digital/cable TV companies renowned for being incompetent? I'm thinking of something like:

"And as industry regulators complain about the amount of porn and cheap rubbish shown on the new networks, one man was angry about how long he'd had to wait for his set-top box:" [photo of Paxman with the machine, if available].

This is a genuine attempt to come up with a line. It is not very good. I have a lot of work to do today, but anyway, there you go, don't say we're not constructive.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By TJ on Wed Oct 18 10:35:58 BST 2000:

It is good actually Jon. Very good.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 18 10:38:38 BST 2000:

Reading it back, it still looks sarcastic. But, for the benefit of any 11OCS people, that was a genuine attempt to come up with a topical gag.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 18 10:43:37 BST 2000:

No, it should be:

"And as the new digital channels continue to grow, UK Gold sent all its subscribers a special set-top box to watch its old programmes on:" [Pic of JP/Enigma machine].

Or do several gags, all using the picture.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Sam D' on Wed Oct 18 10:55:02 BST 2000:

For the sake of any film rights, Paxman's picture should be replaced with that of Springer. Or a more relevant American.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jake' on Wed Oct 18 11:14:36 BST 2000:

On the topic of contributors to 11ocs, the irony is that Jon Holmes submitted lines to a previous series, but none were used. But now he's presenting it.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nunuf Urbuznuz' on Wed Oct 18 13:29:05 BST 2000:

I have no idea who abollocks (gedditt?!?!) is but it's nice to have a fellow writer with similar views.

As for the "making a living" argument - totally agreed. Genuinely good people do well in this job, given the right breaks.

I reserve my low opinion on some VT - but maintain that I have at least put my ideas for changes forward.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Janet' on Wed Oct 18 17:03:31 BST 2000:

I congratulate Bit Of.. for putting a genuine offer on the table.

Steven, I'm determined to soften your cynical edge m'boy. I suspect it may be a fruitless task, but the nurturing side of me wants to give it a shot.
BTW have you seen Monty Python's Flying Circus lately? Not 'classic' repackaging, but the actual unedited series? It was shown here in Australia recently and I was amazed to discover that, although there were the brilliant sequences I remembered, some of it was absolute crap. I actually think that the secret behind successful comedy shows is a distinct creative 'team' working together. As you pointed out, Python only had six members, and this is probably the reason why it worked - less people, less politics for a start.

Re: the chance of being ripped off - just to give you an outsider's view:
Whenever I'm talking to any bitter young comics they always seem to come up with the concept that 'somebody ripped off their idea' and that it turned up on TV. The incident of this actually happening is close to nil. I don't believe that Elvis is alive either. Just not a conspiracy theory type person.
Perhaps your suggestion that A Bit Of... would rip off everybody's material is a little unfair and unrealistic as the offer to allow freelance submissions has been suggested in a fairly public fashion and scripts written on a computer contain a date? Infringement of copyright would be fairly easy to prove under the circumstances. Maybe direct your crusade at a more appropriate source (don't shoot the messenger). Charlie Booker's posting may help find the person to write a letter to; from my experience letters to TV stations are actually paid attention to but message boards are not. If you feel as strongly as you seem to indicate, something pro-active like this would be much better.

Bit Of... I think it's a great suggestion, and if I come up with anything topical/internationally translatable I'll give it a shot (although not having seen the show/format I'm flying a bit blind here!).
Getting paid in pounds stirling is quite a tantalising morsel as our dollar is shit.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Wed Oct 18 17:55:08 BST 2000:

Yeah I have seen the whole unedited series recently, and I still think it's a work of genius. Ok there are lots of not so classic bits in between all the amazing stuff, but the classic stuff is hardly run of the mill or entirely badly written, and at the time this was all amazingly unconventional stuff. I mean, obviously the Goons influenced this show a lot, but I don't like the Goons, I've listened to loads of tapes of them, and they don't make me laugh, I can see where the Pythons got their ideas though, I think Python took that kind of humour a stage further.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Simon Brighty' on Wed Oct 18 19:02:31 BST 2000:

Dear Mr Eleven O'Clock Show, I wish I was you. I am not particularly good at writing comedy (my own admission) and so I do not have a job as a comedy writer. You, on the other hand, have the same inability as me, and yet you have a job (for how long I will not guess at) doing just that. You lucky, lucky bastard. Does your dad own Channel 4??

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A fly on the 11OCS wall' on Wed Oct 18 19:24:24 BST 2000:

It is the mentality and concept behind The 11 O'Clock Show which is wrong - the funniness of individual lines is irrelevant because comedy cannot possibly survive in such a cynical, career-watchful context. For example, Charlie Brooker only contributed to it because it represented a stepping stone to working with Chris Morris, etc. He had no interest in the show per se.

Nice to see Jon licking famous people's arses again though...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Justin on Wed Oct 18 19:58:08 BST 2000:

I'm prepared to give A Bit the benefit of the doubt on this one. I'm not going to send anything in, largely because I'm not interested in writing topical jokes, and I'm certainly not very good at it.

It's interesting that a few 11ocs writers are beginning to express dissatisfaction with the system they're in.

This is the way I see it:

The 11ocs, launched just six months after the demise of Week Ending, was a clear attempt to do a late-night TV version of the R4 stalwart. I remember thinking, when I heard it was all going to be put together on the day of transmission, that it was quite an impressive and brave idea. Now, I can't really describe myself as a particularly loyal critic of the show (I've probably only seen a dozen complete programmes out of what must be 150 editions by now, and only two complete editions since the relaunch), but it quickly became apparent that it was an experiment that was never going to be a rip-roaring success. There isn't enough news out there, especially for a thrice-weekly programme. The real news is a gradual development of events, much of which can only truly be analyzed in retrospect, even years later. No wonder there's just jokes about politicians' physical appearances rather than their policies.

It's time for Kevin Lygo at Channel 4 to admit they fucked up. I mean, I know why they continue to commission it. It gets good ratings for that time of night - and as Channel 4 has to sell its own advertising and deliver decent ratings even outside primetime, this is why things like this get made. (Still don't think it's as bad as Ricky Gervais's programme, or Something For The Weekend (which has at least been axed, thank Christ), or Frontal, which was in fact unwatchable.) On the C4 forums, there are absolute dimwits with nothing to say other than "Bring back Daisy and Iain" - this is, depressingly, the 11ocs fanbase, such as it is. I can imagine Fincham or whoever the writers answering to saying, "Go on - can you get 'fuck' or 'shit' into this line". A fair amount of what could be faintly amusing material is killed in this very way.

I sense that the writers may be equally frustrated with this system. I've stopped being angry with the show - probably a good thing for everyone, most of all me - but I now feel resigned to the fact that C4 and TalkBack are carrying on regardless even though it's a format that satisfies few, unless you count the pissed or the terminally adolescent.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Wed Oct 18 20:23:45 BST 2000:

>>> I remember thinking, when I heard it was all going to be put together on the day of transmission, that it was quite an impressive and brave idea.<<

I would be impressed, but Whose Line Is It Anyway? is put together on the fly, while it is not broadcast live, it might as well be. And it only has 4 'writers' and ran for nearly 10 years until the states bought the rights and nicked it and turned it cack. While I don't think of it as classic comedy, it's still very funny at times, and doesn't have the hollow evil feeling that surrounds the 11ocs. How about getting Tony Slattery and Ryan Styles in as the 11ocs presenters to make a live 30 minute topical improvised show.. A joke obviously, but I bet the results of that would actually be hell of a lot funnier than the present 11ocs.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By TJ on Wed Oct 18 21:56:44 BST 2000:

Wow... what an amazing idea...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Wed Oct 18 23:26:10 BST 2000:

I see Mr A Bo11ocks used the Enigma gag then....

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Thu Oct 19 00:27:22 BST 2000:

I would be impressed, but Whose Line Is It Anyway? is put together on the fly, while it is not broadcast live, it might as well be.

While I don't think of it as classic comedy, it's still very funny at times, and doesn't have the hollow evil feeling that surrounds the 11ocs.

Don't you know about Hatrick?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Thu Oct 19 09:16:37 BST 2000:

"Nice to see Jon licking famous people's arses again though..."

Famous? Which of that lot are famous?

We're crap because we don't have a go. Now we're crap because. Fuck off and write some jokes.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Thu Oct 19 09:17:31 BST 2000:

Because we do. Hang on, did you mean the other Jon - the presenter? Oh never mind.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nunuf Urbuznuz' on Thu Oct 19 12:58:15 BST 2000:

Actually, I thought your Enigma Machine joke was rather good. Indeed, the reason why I return to this forum is because the comments here are usually well written and funny.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Thu Oct 19 13:07:49 BST 2000:

I was busy being drunk last night so I didn't see the show. I did post a final version to that mail address, just to show that we can have a go, though I don't see why we can't be free to criticise if we don't do it.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'hfhgfjhfhjf' on Thu Oct 19 14:56:58 BST 2000:

Anybody who makes 'I was too drunk last night' comments (subtext: 'I have a life') shouldn't be allowed anywhere near comedy.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Thu Oct 19 15:04:12 BST 2000:

Ironically, it was because I don't have a life that I was drunk last night. Ha ha, caught you out, smug git.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Thu Oct 19 15:05:58 BST 2000:

I wonder if the 11OCS will be paying the Corpses for nicking the 'Bring a gun' line from their Edinburgh guide?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev Fountain' on Thu Oct 19 16:50:03 BST 2000:

Actually, the corpses were big fans of Jon Holmes from way back, particularly Grievous Bodily Radio, and were even moved to send him a fan letter earlier this year.

So...As Jon writes the gig guide it might be equally likely that the Corpses nicked the gag off him...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By TJ on Thu Oct 19 16:58:47 BST 2000:

>Anybody who makes 'I was too drunk last night' comments (subtext: 'I have a life') shouldn't be allowed anywhere near comedy.

Not true, they were just too drunk last night.

I don't drink - does this mean I should automatically be given my own series?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Thu Oct 19 19:48:27 BST 2000:

>Dear Mr Eleven O'Clock Show, I wish I was you. I am not particularly good at writing comedy (my own admission) and so I do not have a job as a comedy writer. You, on the other hand, have the same inability as me, and yet you have a job (for how long I will not guess at) doing just that. You lucky, lucky bastard. Does your dad own Channel 4??

No, he doesn't.

Seriously, this is not an argument. This is a childish taunt. Mainly because I'm offering you the opportunity to, in a sense, have the same job as me. In a totally unsurprising move, almost no-one has bothered.

To say that I have the same inability as you as a comedy writer is utterly meaningless: I have not seen anything you have ever written and you have no idea what I have written either, whether you have seen the 11OCS or not. So why do you feel the need to somehow 'score points' in the barrage of lazy, unadventurous wit that continues here? We're not children anymore, we're reasonable adults, aren't we? If you have something to say to me, say it with clarity, sense and intelligence, don't just poke me and run away shouting 'nur nur nur nur nur!'. There are plenty of threads on this forum for people to banter pointlessly and make ill-informed and ill-conceived jibes at each other on. Go there.

I see why some people in the past have been driven away from this forum. It's not the harsh, brutal, cut-to-the-quick criticism -- it's got to be frustration at the pointlessness of most of what goes on here. All any attempt at reasonable discussion seems to provoke in many of you is responses on the level of childish name-calling. But hell, I'm not going anywhere, and I suppose in the end I really shouldn't care what you think. After all, as someone said earlier:

'chances are that the sort of people who frequent this forum, being cynical admirers of often very extreme and experimental comedy (and music and films, for that matter) are not going to like something that trades in shock value and attempts to cater for the broadest comedy audience possible, just as uptight middle class people are not going to like it either. You are never going to convince any of us, so why are you trying?'

The answer is, I don't know. In the end, you're not in any way important. Perhaps I just don't like people perpetuating fallacies and inaccuracies, and it can actually be interesting to answer some of your questions.

So keep it up. Just make it better. (as some of you say about the 11OCS)

A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show.

(Incidentally, Jon's Enigma joke was not used on the show last night. I did pitch it, and it was appreciated but rejected. Sorry. As is normal in the production factory of one-liner comedy, this happens to much of the material we produce.)

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Thu Oct 19 19:58:02 BST 2000:

Not to say that ALL of you are immature and pointless: Jon, Justin, Gee, Stuart O, James, TJ, tvspaulmoore and Peter O have all at some point made constructive comments, whether good or bad. It's just that the rest of you seem overwhelming.

A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Rob S on Thu Oct 19 23:26:33 BST 2000:

>Actually, the corpses were big fans of Jon Holmes from way back, particularly Grievous Bodily Radio, and were even moved to send him a fan letter earlier this year.
>So...As Jon writes the gig guide it might be equally likely that the Corpses nicked the gag off him...

The corpses also wrote a detailed and bitter letter of complaint about Grievous Bodily Radio to Feedback.

You figure it out Nev.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'nev' on Thu Oct 19 23:53:20 BST 2000:

it's very hard to figure out childish inconsistant people, Rob...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev' on Fri Oct 20 08:25:58 BST 2000:

but seriously though, is there any part of my posting you DON'T agree with? Do you deny that at least some of the Corpses on this very site (or SOTCAA equivalent) stated how much they liked Grievous Bodily Radio? And he, or they sent Jon a letter to that effect? And GBR was broadcast some considerable time before their Edinburgh thingy?

That's all I wanted to point out. I don't post to this site for arguments or bickering, just to set records straight. Jon is a good friend of mine, and it's bad enough some of you hauling him over the coals for his presenting, without calling into question his writing credentials too.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Ewar Woowar on Fri Oct 20 09:19:25 BST 2000:

(Rob! You're alive!)


So...couldn't find any examples of my misogyny, then...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Rob S on Fri Oct 20 10:42:53 BST 2000:

>but seriously though, is there any part of my posting you DON'T agree with? Do you deny that at least some of the Corpses on this very site (or SOTCAA equivalent) stated how much they liked Grievous Bodily Radio? And he, or they sent Jon a letter to that effect? And GBR was broadcast some considerable time before their Edinburgh thingy?

The corpses never commented on Grievous Bodily Radio on SOTCAA or this forum. As for the letter, well as I said before, you figure it out.

>That's all I wanted to point out. I don't post to this site for arguments or bickering, just to set records straight. Jon is a good friend of mine, and it's bad enough some of you hauling him over the coals for his presenting, without calling into question his writing credentials too.

That's the whole point Nev. Jon is a public figure, that's how he makes his living. If people want to comment on his writing / presenting skills, they are perfectly entitled to.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'The other King's Cross' on Fri Oct 20 12:16:13 BST 2000:

> And the money is more than a fiver a line. > Sorry to disappoint you, but whatever you > may think of it in other areas, the 11
> O'Clock Show doesn't fuck it's writers
> over when it comes to payment.

Indeed not. When I bumped into Nev recently and, in conversation, he hinted at how much he was pulling down for his stuff on the 11OCS, I compared it mentally to what I get as a hack, and I felt myself swallowing something hard and jagged. Job's a good 'un.

For my own part, I don't think much of the show on the basis of what I have seen, so I don't watch it. And anyone who feels that they could do better should have a go. It really is that simple.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Fri Oct 20 12:31:17 BST 2000:

'Grievous Bodily Radio' blatantly ripped off old On The Hour/MWE/Lee & Herring jokes, if I remember correctly. I have a list somewhere.

Pots, kettles, etc.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'boki' on Fri Oct 20 13:03:32 BST 2000:

When was GBR broadcast? It's just that the gig guide thing reminded me of Blue Jam's Dance Chart/Club News bits. Anyone able to establish the chronology?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Fri Oct 20 14:34:26 BST 2000:

John Peel played the Blue Jam Club News thing on his show last night. The irony meter was reading 11, I can tell you.

Going off on a tangent, I think Peelie is unwittingly filling the void left by Radio 1 comedy shows. Last night he played the same session track twice, the puppy nearly peed on the console, and it was announced that when you turn the lights on the next room they go out all over the house. Funniest thing I've heard in ages.

Great show, though.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Fri Oct 20 14:47:33 BST 2000:

It may be coincidence, but it seems that every time I hear Peel on R4 he manages to work in a disparaging reference to 'Loose Ends'. He did once say he was a big fan of 'Doon Your Way' once.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jake' on Fri Oct 20 17:23:11 BST 2000:

If you want more detail on previous Jon Holmes projects, check out my site (shameless plug coming up) http://www.poorquality.co.uk - and there is audio and a few script extracts from GBR, if you're interested.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Justin on Fri Oct 20 18:11:35 BST 2000:

Peel fondly remembers Doon Your Way in RT this week. I also remember he was citing Absolutely as genius, and The Fast Show long before anyone else even bothered reviewing it in the press.

And his Martin Brown jingle on Radio Active (circa 1987) was one of the funniest things I've ever heard...

#I quite like Martin Brown.

Jon? Remember it?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev Fountain.' on Fri Oct 20 22:01:40 BST 2000:

*sigh*

This is the reason that so many of the contributors to this site find it so depressing, the arguments seem to slide around the forum like an under-cooked breakfast.

Rob, all i was doing was responding to an anonymous posting (naturally) that accused Jon Holmes of ripping off the Corpses.

You seem to have decoded my message and translated it into a demand that Jon should not be criticised for anything he does.

Of course I didn't say that.

Of course he's fair game (within reason of course.)

If the actual guy who runs the site can't actually respond to a posting without a curled sneer, what hope is there for the rest of us?

I know for a fact that Jon didn't plagiarise the corpses. Jon was doing his gig guide in mid 1997, some three years before their edinburgh posting. Chris Morris's 'Blue Jam' appeared at the end of that year,
so it's safe to say he didn't plagiarise him either.

Now, I know Jon wouldn't plagiarise the Corpses, and I take that Rob ignoring the central point of my posting means that he seriously doesn't believe it either.

But to your second and rather more irrelevant point; even if the Corpses didn't post their approval about GBR (even though I'm pretty sure they did) they did send Jon a letter saying how much they liked GBR (I know; i've SEEN it).

So, if they did complain to Feedback...Well Rob,I have finally worked it out. Thanks for pointing it out to me. They're two-faced wankers. Only explanation. Agreed?

I'm sorry to go on about this, but I thought an accusation of plagiarism is serious enough to merit some sort of defence. It's not a difference of opinion like other threads, it's a lazy inaccurate accusation which should be vehemantly rebuffed.

I'm also sorry this has to be my fourth posting on what I thought was a simple point, but as Charlie, Richard, and 'A Bit of 11O'Clock show' know, it's being British and abroad. You have to speak very slowly and clearly to get anyone to understand you.

Thanks for your time.

Nev.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Justin on Sat Oct 21 12:13:11 BST 2000:

Are the Style Wankers Bert Tyler Moore and George Jeffrie? Because if they are, it would explain why Harry Enfield's new Sky series has been universally trashed - they are chief writers on it.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Rob S on Sat Oct 21 13:37:07 BST 2000:

>Rob, all i was doing was responding to an anonymous posting (naturally) that accused Jon Holmes of ripping off the Corpses. You seem to have decoded my message and translated it into a demand that Jon should not be criticised for anything he does.

Nev, that bit of my message that went:

"That's the whole point Nev. Jon is a public figure, that's how he makes his living. If people want to comment on his writing / presenting skills, they are perfectly entitled to."

was a reply to you saying:

"That's all I wanted to point out. I don't post to this site for arguments or bickering, just to set records straight. Jon is a good friend of mine, and it's bad enough some of you hauling him over the coals for his presenting, without calling into question his writing credentials too."

It was not a reply to your original posting:

"Actually, the corpses were big fans of Jon Holmes from way back, particularly Grievous Bodily Radio, and were even moved to send him a fan letter earlier this year.
So...As Jon writes the gig guide it might be equally likely that the Corpses nicked the gag off him... "

Obviously. Now let's stop trying to muddy the waters to try and win an arguement, eh? Now moving back to your last message again...

>You seem to have decoded my message and translated it into a demand that Jon should not be criticised for anything he does.
>Of course I didn't say that.
>Of course he's fair game (within reason of course.)

Well I wasn't decoding your original message at all, I was simply saying that even if Jon is a friend of yours doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to express their views on him in this forum, even if you don't like or agree with it. I wasn't suggesting you demanded anything. Your perfectly welcome to come on and defend Jon, especially if you feel he's being unfairly treated, but I don't think that applies in this case...

>If the actual guy who runs the site can't actually respond to a posting without a curled sneer, what hope is there for the rest of us?

My messages aren't intended to be sneery. Harsh, maybe ('You figure it out'), but not sneery... I'm not a writer so I doubt there's much I could do to improve.

>I know for a fact that Jon didn't plagiarise the corpses. Jon was doing his gig guide in mid 1997, some three years before their edinburgh posting. Chris Morris's 'Blue Jam' appeared at the end of that year,
>so it's safe to say he didn't plagiarise him either.
>Now, I know Jon wouldn't plagiarise the Corpses, and I take that Rob ignoring the central point of my posting means that he seriously doesn't believe it either.

I was ignoring that point, because it was irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, which is the corpses are not the big fans of GBR your message implied and they certainly didn't steal any material off of it (which I know you didn't state, but it's not 'equally likely' either).

>But to your second and rather more irrelevant point; even if the Corpses didn't post their approval about GBR (even though I'm pretty sure they did) they did send Jon a letter saying how much they liked GBR (I know; i've SEEN it).
>So, if they did complain to Feedback...Well Rob,I have finally worked it out. Thanks for pointing it out to me. They're two-faced wankers. Only explanation. Agreed?

If you wish to view it like that, but then you could say it's the only way to get any information out of people who are so far up their own arse with self-importance. Whatever the view, suffice to say it happens all the time in the media.

>I'm sorry to go on about this, but I thought an accusation of plagiarism is serious enough to merit some sort of defence. It's not a difference of opinion like other threads, it's a lazy inaccurate accusation which should be vehemantly rebuffed.

I notice you've ignored the posting from Anonymous

"'Grievous Bodily Radio' blatantly ripped off old On The Hour/MWE/Lee & Herring jokes, if I remember correctly. I have a list somewhere."

If this is true, then all the accusations are not without merit. Would you care to rebuff that?

>I'm also sorry this has to be my fourth posting on what I thought was a simple point, but as Charlie, Richard, and 'A Bit of 11O'Clock show' know, it's being British and abroad. You have to speak very slowly and clearly to get anyone to understand you.

Is that the attitude you take with you to the 11OCS writers meetings?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Sat Oct 21 14:03:06 BST 2000:

>So, if they did complain to Feedback...Well Rob,I have finally worked it out. Thanks for pointing it out to me. They're two-faced wankers. Only explanation. Agreed?

What a horrible thing to do. How terrible. Reminds me of an awful TV show I saw recently. They had this god-awful idea of interviewing someone, but not in a serious way, more to try and take the piss out of the interviewee for some cheap, nasty, pointless laughs.

The name of the show escapes me at the moment.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev Fountain' on Sat Oct 21 14:32:04 BST 2000:

Thanks for that, and thanks for the inevitable catch-all multi-purpose '11 O'Clock show' punchline. If you read your own site I think you'll find the rest of the forum are heartily sick of lazy and childish side-swipes like that.

But, as you say, you're not a writer.

I suppose my initial sentence should have read, 'it must be depressing enough for Jon to be attacked, open bracket, legitimately in some peoples opinion, close bracket, for his presenting skills, as well as being attacked, open bracket, completely erroneously, close bracket, for his writing abilities (and originality therein)...' But it's very difficult to put caveats after each statement, writing with the assumption that someone is going to take the time and trouble to pick over every word of every sentence to try and find something to take issue with.

Regarding the other 'Anonymous' posting. Jon had already told me before my reply that he'd never heard a single episode of 'Fist of Fun' before he'd done his first gig guide, and was probably more agrieved about that accusation than the 'Corpses' one.

But I ignored it because i'm not Jon's PR agent.

I was responding to a specific allegation of plagiarism about a specific line, not a general grumble of 'stylistic' similarities.

They say there are only five jokes in the world, and we can all pick out influences, if we sat through an episode of 'On The Hour' no doubt we could atribute almost every sketch and joke to the Goons, Monty Python, etc, etc, but i'm not playing that game. I'm 31, and i'm not a bored student anymore.

I'm not here to justify Jon's whole life and times to you, as I said in my last posting, I was just responding to the 'bring a gun' line allegation.

And it seems you agree. He didn't nick it from the corpses.

So that's settled then.

Until the next round of innuendo and barely concealed rage at a writer daring to defend himself or his friends.

Ta for your time.

Nev.

p.s. possible ways to come back on this?

1)Yes, there's only five jokes in the world, pity that none of them of them have appeared on the 11O'Clock show...

2) Yes, I'm not a writer, and judging by the 11'O Clock show neither are you...

Just a few suggestions there....

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By TJ on Sat Oct 21 15:24:07 BST 2000:

I'm not accusing anyone of plagiarism before anyone gets the wrong idea, but I have my reputation as a Chris Morris-obsessed, radio-fixated pedant to think of; the 'Club Guide', in style of content if not in actual name, predated "Blue Jam" by quite some time.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jake' on Sat Oct 21 16:37:37 BST 2000:

I am a bored student.
Reading this forum provides marginally more entertainment (in the same respect that watching parliament does) than actually doing maths.
Keep up the good work!

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Mr Correct' on Sat Oct 21 17:28:57 BST 2000:

The gig guide has its roots in the 'Audio Pullout' sketches Lee & Herring (mostly) wrote for On The Hour. To my mind.

Nev says 'I'm not a student anymore' in reference to his people who claim comedy shows rip off earlier comedy shows. What does that mean, exactly? That he no longer cares whether comedy is original, so long as it pays the rent and allows you to do other things? An 11OCS attitude if ever there was one...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Justin on Sat Oct 21 18:02:43 BST 2000:

>Thanks for that, and thanks for the inevitable catch-all multi-purpose '11 O'Clock show' punchline. If you read your own site I think you'll find the rest of the forum are heartily sick of lazy and childish side-swipes like that.
>
Well, I'm beginning to tire of such rejoicing in its awfulness or whatever, it's true, and I've helped it all along, to some extent. I did watch the highlights show last night genuinely willing it to make me laugh - I'd like to be able to say this joke or that joke entertained me. But I'm afraid it didn't.

I do think that, despite Nev Fountain's protestations, the 11ocs's appropriation of On The Hour is rather more obvious and (artistically, not morally) crude than what On The Hour did with Goons/Python or whatever. On The Hour/Morris/Brasseye examined media cruelty in news reporting, and borrowed surrealistic devices in doing so. Brass Eye was a satire on how current affairs shows can use shock tactics in order to highlight their own mock-outrage. What the 11ocs does is simply use the outrage while acknowledging how naughty it is for using such material. Granted, it's not overtly homophobic or sexist or nurse-hating anymore, but it still can't resist the cheap laugh of office humour. In an office, the cheap laugh works as private humour. Transfer that to TV and, even though the audience might guffaw at the supposed "irreverence", the joke is lost before it reaches the punters at home.

Anyway, I think I've said quite enough on the subject. I don't want to wind up the show's staff anymore, and I've got better things to do with my time than stay tuned to a show I don't actually enjoy.

So I'm no longer going to clog up this forum with my opinions on the show, as I think most people here know where I stand. There is, at the moment, a fair bit of decent TV comedy on, and I'm going to concentrate on what I *do* enjoy: One Foot In The Grave, Black Books, Royle Family, Futurama, Simpsons, Louis Theroux, Frasier repeats, and no doubt other things I've forgotten. I may be sending a letter to Channel 4 regarding the wisdom of showing 11ocs three times a week, but equally I might not.

Someone tell me if it gets funnier, though.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Rob S on Sat Oct 21 18:43:35 BST 2000:

>Thanks for that, and thanks for the inevitable catch-all multi-purpose '11 O'Clock show' punchline. If you read your own site I think you'll find the rest of the forum are heartily sick of lazy and childish side-swipes like that.
>But, as you say, you're not a writer.

It wasn't a punchline, it was serious remark (albeit in a rhetorical question form) in reply to a patronising paragraph.

>I suppose my initial sentence should have read, 'it must be depressing enough for Jon to be attacked, open bracket, legitimately in some peoples opinion, close bracket, for his presenting skills, as well as being attacked, open bracket, completely erroneously, close bracket, for his writing abilities (and originality therein)...' But it's very difficult to put caveats after each statement, writing with the assumption that someone is going to take the time and trouble to pick over every word of every sentence to try and find something to take issue with.

Maybe you should have, but I wasn't trying to explain your sentence construction, more the point of your message. I was to clarify that I hadn't decoded your original reply to Anonymous incorrectly. However, I have yet to be persuaded that people are 'completely erroneous' in attacking the originality of his writing.

>Regarding the other 'Anonymous' posting. Jon had already told me before my reply that he'd never heard a single episode of 'Fist of Fun' before he'd done his first gig guide, and was probably more agrieved about that accusation than the 'Corpses' one.
>But I ignored it because i'm not Jon's PR agent.
>I was responding to a specific allegation of plagiarism about a specific line, not a general grumble of 'stylistic' similarities.
>They say there are only five jokes in the world, and we can all pick out influences, if we sat through an episode of 'On The Hour' no doubt we could atribute almost every sketch and joke to the Goons, Monty Python, etc, etc, but i'm not playing that game. I'm 31, and i'm not a bored student anymore.
>I'm not here to justify Jon's whole life and times to you, as I said in my last posting, I was just responding to the 'bring a gun' line allegation.
>And it seems you agree. He didn't nick it from the corpses.

Just because someone doesn't reply to something does not mean they agree with it (or that they don't). I'm mostly ignoring this bit of your postings as I don't think it's that important. However, I don't believe the posting from that Anonymous was referring to just the gig guide.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'nev' on Sat Oct 21 23:42:40 BST 2000:

Rob s: Well if that's the case, and if 'anonymous' is referring to Jon's other work, I haven't followed Jon's broadcast career closely enough to rebutt this with any authority.

So I apologise.

With a caveat that I know Jon to be fiercely individualistic writer, and would never slavishly copy anyone else's work. I would certainly assume with confidence that any similarities his work has to anybody else's is purely superficial and coincidental.

Justin: I did not come on here to defend the veracity of the '11 O'Clock show' as a whole, there have been too many people working on it's format and contents past and present to do so with any authority. I merely re-iterate, that on the point first raised by 'anonymous', Jon's gig guide was not lifted from the Corpses web site.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Justin on Sun Oct 22 21:40:21 BST 2000:

>Justin: I did not come on here to defend the veracity of the '11 O'Clock show' as a whole, there have been too many people working on it's format and contents past and present to do so with any authority.

Fair point. Unless we can get Fincham to face the music, of course...

Incidentally, Kathryn Flett in today's Observer lazily does the "used to be very funny, now not at all funny" received wisdom as borrowed from the C4 "nitwit" forum. Now, I don't like the 'new look' of it either, but, if only for ethical (not comedic) reasons, it isn't quite as bad as it used to be. Bet she's never seen it (apart from Ali G, who was really good, aahaahahahah. Well, I disagree - even he was mediocre so there.). Mind you, she also slated One Foot and The Royle Family, and only seemed to give Black Books the thumbs-up because she has the hots for Dylan Moran. What a dreadful reviewer she is. (Still, at least she likes BB, I guess. In the preview section, one Kim Bunce calls it "tedious" and wishes that radio was hip again. Nice to know that credibility is still more important than actual content in Kim's world of boneheadedness.)
>
>
>

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Al' on Sun Oct 22 22:12:19 BST 2000:

>Well, I disagree - even he was mediocre so there.). Mind you, she also slated One Foot and The Royle Family, and only seemed to give Black Books the thumbs-up because she has the hots for Dylan Moran. What a dreadful reviewer she is. (Still, at least she likes BB, I guess. In the preview section, one Kim Bunce calls it "tedious" and wishes that radio was hip again. Nice to know that credibility is still more important than actual content in Kim's world of boneheadedness.)

I tried reading Flett's TV reviews again last week. She is the *worst* TV reviewer I have ever read. Even Nancy Banks-Smith simply telling you what happened in various programmes the night before looks good compared to Flett's dribblings. How did she get that job? What are her credentials? Anyone?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Mon Oct 23 09:28:13 BST 2000:

I was listening to "Quote Unquote" on R4 the other day, and someone related the story of a meeting between the editor of 'Punch' and W.S.Gilbert (of Gilbert & Sullivan fame) towards the end of the 19th century:

EDITOR: Punch gets thousands of jokes every week.

GILBERT: Then why don't you publish some of them?


No relevance to this strand, I just thought it was interesting, but not interesting enough to start a new strand.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Mon Oct 23 12:18:34 BST 2000:

Nancy Banks-Smith is fantastic. She just has the air of being a semi-retired TV reviewer who doesn't give a toss and is therefore very cynical about the whole shebang. Which is exactly what she is, AFAIK.

More cynicysm, please :-)

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Al' on Mon Oct 23 13:32:21 BST 2000:

>Nancy Banks-Smith is fantastic. She just has the air of being a semi-retired TV reviewer who doesn't give a toss and is therefore very cynical about the whole shebang. Which is exactly what she is, AFAIK.
>
>More cynicysm, please :-)

I'm sure she's wondeful and full of cynical observations. Unfortunately, none of these seem to end up in her TV 'reviews' which simply appear to recount, in not very interesting detail, what happened in the shows she watched the night before. Not giving a toss is one thing - not being bothered to write anything interesting AND GETTING PAID AS WELL is quite another.

She's still better than Flett tho'

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Mon Oct 23 13:39:48 BST 2000:

I've only seen a few NBS reviews because I've never been much of a Guardian reader, but I always thought that (like Dilys Powell's film reviews (Dilys Powell=another old crock who reviewed stuff. Sadly died a few years back. Started reviewing sometime before WW2, didn't she? Was at Oxford in the 1920s, anyway.)) she hada detached attitude to TV because she regarded it as essentially ephemeral and unimportant subject anyway, taking a basically elitist attitude to culture... or perhaps she just couldn't be arsed. We may never know.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Stuart O' on Mon Oct 23 14:53:54 BST 2000:

(In the voice of the disembodied guy from Blind Date:)

Do you prefer:

Reviewer Number One, who slags off your favourite show, thus pissing you off;

Reviewer Number Two, who praises your least favourite show, thus pissing you aff even more (albeit giving you something to talk about on TV Forum); or

Reviewer Number Three, who actually tells you what happened in shows you might not have seen, thus allowing you to make up your own mind about whether to catch it next week.

The decision.....is yours!




i.e. I do find NBS interesting.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Justin on Mon Oct 23 17:28:08 BST 2000:

I don't mind NBS either, to be honest. I know what you mean, Stuart, about being told what you missed in a TV show. Why not indeed?

What I hate though is:

Reviewer Number Four: Atrocious writer who nevertheless sometimes likes the same things that you like (perfect example: writes for the Radio Times....name escapes me for some reason....)

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Mon Oct 23 19:53:10 BST 2000:

Oh for god's sake, just start up a TV reviewer strand will you and stop cluttering up this entertaining thread of discourse and abuse.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Justin on Mon Oct 23 20:23:08 BST 2000:

>Oh for god's sake, just start up a TV reviewer strand will you and stop cluttering up this entertaining thread of discourse and abuse.

Looks like we really have run out of things to say about 11ocs.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev' on Mon Oct 23 21:01:32 BST 2000:

I've just worked out how to do this 'reply to posting' stuff, that's why i'm replying to old postings...

>If you wish to view it like that, but then you could say it's the only way to get any information out of people who are so far up their own arse with self-importance. Whatever the view, suffice to say it happens all the time in the media.

I think this shows a fascinating insight in the Corpses mindset. Picture a newish writer and performer, like Jon, just on his first Radio show, and in the Corpses mind he's already he's up his own arse with self importance and needs two-faced bullshitting to keep him sweet.

Jon's a decent bloke, as he bemusedly said this morning 'I'd have given them any information they wanted if they'd just asked nicely'.

The whole tenure of this letter thing and your subsequent comments smack of someone reaching a hand out to greet you, and then snatching it away and thumbing their nose at you. All very childish.

You do know that GBR got cancelled because of letters to feedback...?

Now he's writing to the Corpse who sent him the letter, so, if you're fibbing, more fool you. If you're not, he'd quite like an explanation from them about this crass atitude...

The Corpses had a good website, opinionated yes, robust, yes, but if it had only been fair and mature as well it would still be with us today. It's these type of infantile 'one step too far' tactics that got them taken off.

This whole GBR/letter thing's very ironic to me. It seems the Corpses, through you Rob, have managed to piss on their own chips even from beyond the grave.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev' on Mon Oct 23 21:54:51 BST 2000:

>'Grievous Bodily Radio' blatantly ripped off old On The Hour/MWE/Lee & Herring jokes, if I remember correctly. I have a list somewhere.
>
>Pots, kettles, etc.

You see, this is where the argument got silly, anonymous (anonymous - not enough courage to put his own name, not enough wit to think of another)

You say Jon ripped off the corpses, I prove to you he didn't, and instead of just fessing up and apologising, you just chuck more allegations at me without examples, which I don't even know how to prove or disprove.

It's this kind of futile argument go round and round in a mobius strip from hell until everyone's heartily sick of your name on a posting.

As it happens, I like futile arguments, so more power to your elbow, sonny Jim.

Chicken and Egg anyone? I'm buying...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev' on Mon Oct 23 22:06:25 BST 2000:

>
>Nev says 'I'm not a student anymore' in reference to his people who claim comedy shows rip off earlier comedy shows. What does that mean, exactly? That he no longer cares whether comedy is original, so long as it pays the rent and allows you to do other things? An 11OCS attitude if ever there was one...

I'm referring of course to the black-clad bore who sits in the corner of every student union sucking the life out of everything, who says that Monty Python didn't have an original idea in their head, and just copied Spike Milligan's 'Q' series down on the back of a fag packet, that 'Father Ted' was just 'Fools and Horses' with Irish Accents, That 'Time Gentleman Please' nicked their consonants from 'Til Death Us Do Part' and their vowels from 'Cheers' and that the every episode of 'Men Behaving Badly' can be traced back to a cave painting on the walls of Sutton Hoo.

Does that answer your question?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Rob S on Mon Oct 23 23:52:24 BST 2000:

>>If you wish to view it like that, but then you could say it's the only way to get any information out of people who are so far up their own arse with self-importance. Whatever the view, suffice to say it happens all the time in the media.
>I think this shows a fascinating insight in the Corpses mindset. Picture a newish writer and performer, like Jon, just on his first Radio show, and in the Corpses mind he's already he's up his own arse with self importance and needs two-faced bullshitting to keep him sweet.

Ok Nev, first of all I'm not a 'corpse' I'm merely their website builder. So if anything this is not an insight into their mindset, it's an insight to mine. Secondly, I responded to your original postings because you were claiming they were fans of GBR when I knew they were not.

You repeatly claimed you had seen the corpses had posted messages on this forum and on the site re GBR, yet I can assure you there are none (other people have commented though).

'two-faced wankers' / 'up their own arse with self-importance' : Simply an example of how the same situation can be viewed from two extreme viewpoints.

>Jon's a decent bloke, as he bemusedly said this morning 'I'd have given them any information they wanted if they'd just asked nicely'.

Which, if you read it properly, is what this supposed 'fan' letter did.

>The whole tenure of this letter thing and your subsequent comments smack of someone reaching a hand out to greet you, and then snatching it away and thumbing their nose at you. All very childish.
>You do know that GBR got cancelled because of letters to feedback...?
>Now he's writing to the Corpse who sent him the letter, so, if you're fibbing, more fool you. If you're not, he'd quite like an explanation from them about this crass atitude...
>The Corpses had a good website, opinionated yes, robust, yes, but if it had only been fair and mature as well it would still be with us today. It's these type of infantile 'one step too far' tactics that got them taken off.
>This whole GBR/letter thing's very ironic to me. It seems the Corpses, through you Rob, have managed to piss on their own chips even from beyond the grave.

Just FYI: SOTCAA is down of it's own choosing.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Tue Oct 24 08:37:40 BST 2000:

"every episode of 'Men Behaving Badly' can be traced back to a cave painting on the walls of Sutton Hoo"

True.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By TJ on Tue Oct 24 08:47:17 BST 2000:

>"every episode of 'Men Behaving Badly' can be traced back to a cave painting on the walls of Sutton Hoo"
>
>True.

In fact, the most accurate and incisive comedy criticism that I have ever heard.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Radiator Head Child' on Tue Oct 24 18:07:12 BST 2000:

Oh dear "A Bit of the 11..." you have dug yourself into a quite a big hole trying to argue your case, and I feel sorry for you, if only I knew which writer you were, I could sympathise properly, because some of the writers I genuinely like- from their other work mind you.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Radiator Head Child' on Tue Oct 24 18:07:26 BST 2000:

Oh dear "A Bit of the 11..." you have dug yourself into a quite a big hole trying to argue your case, and I feel sorry for you, if only I knew which writer you were, I could sympathise properly, because some of the writers I genuinely like- from their other work mind you.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By Justin on Tue Oct 24 20:04:18 BST 2000:

>Oh dear "A Bit of the 11..." you have dug yourself into a quite a big hole trying to argue your case, and I feel sorry for you, if only I knew which writer you were, I could sympathise properly, because some of the writers I genuinely like- from their other work mind you.

You managed to read the fast-moving 11ocs credits?! I'm mightily impressed... :0)

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev' on Tue Oct 24 21:14:29 BST 2000:

>Oh dear "A Bit of the 11..." you have dug yourself into a quite a big hole trying to argue your case, and I feel sorry for you, if only I knew which writer you were, I could sympathise properly, because some of the writers I genuinely like- from their other work mind you.

And what argument would that be? All he's done is offer you an opportunity to write for the show. I don't think your radiator head is switched on.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev' on Tue Oct 24 21:19:36 BST 2000:

Events have come to light that make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rob is wrong; the Corpses did NOT send a letter of complaint about Grievous Bodily Radio; it was actually a letter about 'The Skivers'.

So, I can retract my assertion that the Corpses are two-faced wankers, Rob can retract his assertion about the letter, and 'anonymous' can retract his statement about Jon plagiarising the Corpses, which started the whole thing in the first place.

Hurrah! All of Naboo celebrates, Anakin and Obi-Wan grin at each other, and Brian Blessed holds a big sparkly ball aloft. End credits.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Tue Oct 24 22:06:30 BST 2000:

And now, the post-credits sequence...

Subject: IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE 11OCS CONTRIBUTORS
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Tue Oct 24 23:27:12 BST 2000:

After some confusion, and a bit of unnecessary, though mild, abuse via email, I feel I should clear something up:

Please don't expect an immediate response to any contributions you send to me at elevenoclockshow@hotmail.com

I shall endeavour to get back to you as soon as possible, but cannot promise to do so immediately, and am unlikely to be able to give you much of a reason why particular material was not used.

Sorry. Some of you are having a go though, which is great. Keep it up. But remember, this is an experiment, an opportunity for you to pick up the gauntlet and see if you *can* do better. If you simply want a job as a comedy writer, I advise you to look elsewhere.

A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Radiator Head Child' on Wed Oct 25 13:31:23 BST 2000:

Oh dear dear dear
Do you have to trivialise everything?
My head hurts from trying to keep up.
Where have the simpler days of discussion gone?
Don't answer that please.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jake' on Wed Oct 25 14:29:12 BST 2000:

Are you the same Radiator Head Child that e-mails me (World of Jon and Andy website) all the time? Just that the remote address doesn't seem to match up.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Wed Oct 25 14:37:59 BST 2000:

Anybody willing to type up a transcript of the censored sketch for those of us with shit computers?

Please?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Wed Oct 25 14:39:00 BST 2000:

Sorry, wrong thread - should have been in the Chris Morris one.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Radiator Head Child' on Wed Oct 25 17:05:51 BST 2000:

Jake- you're actually Jake! of jon and andy fame!
Yes I am Radiator Head Child, sorry I email you so much if it gets on your nerves just tell me to naff off.
Mind you the last guy to do that regretted it...
Anyway you can just try Simon Evans method, which is ignoring my fanmail.
Email me if you wish to.
elisebramich@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Radiator Head Child' on Wed Oct 25 17:07:08 BST 2000:

Oh hang on, what is this remote address thing, I probably know what you're talking about, but just dumb it down a shade, s'il vous plait...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Radiator Head Child' on Wed Oct 25 17:40:16 BST 2000:

I take back whatever I said about Simon Evans he emailed me back.
Thank you Simon.
Cheered up my miserable 15 year old existance

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jake' on Wed Oct 25 18:02:28 BST 2000:

Fame? Er, no. But I am the webmaster of their site. Yes, 'tis I. And I don't really care if you e-mail me, just provides fodder for the site.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Radiator Head Child' on Wed Oct 25 18:15:48 BST 2000:

And if you must know:
I tape the 11 ocs because i'm not supposed to watch TV that late at night- this is why I listen to radio 4 approx. that time and know of TNS TWII etc.
This is how I could slow down and watch credits- far more entertaining than aspects of the show...

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Radiator Head Child' on Wed Oct 25 19:30:22 BST 2000:

Hey fodder (call me slow)!

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Radiator Head Child' on Wed Oct 25 19:31:25 BST 2000:

Where is everybody? No one gets here til 9 and that is when stuff is on- oh b******* have missed ~Sean Lock b***** nuisance

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Mole' on Thu Oct 26 13:29:23 BST 2000:

listen, here's the important bit -- if it goes down well, IT WILL GO IN THE SCRIPT and YOU WILL BE PAID. MONEY.
>

Not according to Toby Foster.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Thu Oct 26 17:27:46 BST 2000:

>>listen, here's the important bit -- if it goes down well, IT WILL GO IN THE SCRIPT and YOU WILL BE PAID. MONEY.

>Not according to Toby Foster.

Hmmm. Don't know who this Toby Foster bloke is. Has he submitted material this series? Or is his gripe with the previous administration, in which case I direct you to all my earlier comments about the lack of any connection between those involved with the 11OCS now and in the past.

If however he feels that he has had material used without payment on this series, I contend that that is highly unlikely, and the most sensible explanation would be that he coincidentally submitted a line already written by one of the other writers. It can happen. Comedy minds think alike.

So, Mole, I honestly believe that no-one has stolen material, submitted or not, from this Toby Foster person. I don't know anyone involved with the 11OCS at the moment who would deliberately do that.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Gee' on Thu Oct 26 19:54:46 BST 2000:

I've sent in some jokes for consideration but nothing was picked - even though I really did believe that my jokes were funnier than the jokes written by the 11 0'clock Show team. It's all very well saying you will use jokes you think are funny - but who's doing the judging? You can't seriously believe that your jokes in the last 4 programmes were any good at all. I’ve watched the last 4 programmes and all I’ve heard are variations of the same jokes. You can’t just keep saying, Cherie Blair's got a wide mouth, Widdecombe is fat,, Prescott is fat. And who finds the reference to Camilla looking like a horse funny? (It been done to death by everyone and their brother.) If variety is the spice of life then the 11 0’clock Show is a very mild curry of rehashed jokes. But having said that, there are parts of the show I do like. I think Bulla is funny. And I find some of the take-the-piss-out-the-public stuff good as well (although it isn’t consistently good). I thought the Style Wankers were brilliant on Comedy Nation but the joke’s exhausted now.

When A Bit Of The 11 0’clock Show first suggested sending contributions to the show I thought it was great opportunity for some of the forum wits to show what they could do. But I don’t believe the forum users’ jokes are really judge impartially – surely they can’t be worse than some of the garbage the 11 0’ clock team serves up three times a week. The reason why the forum users’ jokes are rejected is because the only person committed to airing the forum users’ jokes is the one member of the team who posts here – the rest of the team probably couldn’t give two fucks whether we send in jokes or not. After all, why would they want to expose their own inadequacies?

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Thu Oct 26 20:50:32 BST 2000:

I can't believe they didn't work out one for the TV awards "This week millions of viewers were horridly confronted by a pair of tits at the TV awards, but that's no way to talk about 'Jonothan Ross' and 'Gary Bushell'."

Insert celeb names there really.. you could even of stuck Richard and Judy's names in, which would be slightly more ironic. Such an obvious joke that none of them could work out, yet John Prescott likes pies is on the show 10 times a week.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev Fountain' on Fri Oct 27 00:15:46 BST 2000:

>I can't believe they didn't work out one for the TV awards

We did loads and loads of jokes for the Tv awards. One me and my writing partner did, and which was used on the show was... 'When Richard saw what had happened his jaw hit the floor, just after Judy's tits did'.

Coarse yes, offensive, probably. But a good joke for the post-pub telly crowd.

"This week millions of viewers were horridly confronted by a pair of tits at the TV awards, but that's no way to talk about 'Jonothan Ross' and 'Gary Bushell'."
>
>Insert celeb names there really.. you could even of stuck Richard and Judy's names in, which would be slightly more ironic.

You might think this is great, Steve but i don't. I'm sorry to be rude but 'people are tits' is an incredibly hackneyed construction. Doesn't mean to say that a joke like that might slip through on a thin news day, but to submit stuff cold like you are doing, a joke has to really stand out, not be one like the one you've posted, that was immediately thought of by every writer in the building and immediately discarded.

Such an obvious joke that none of them could work out, yet John Prescott likes pies is on the show 10 times a week.

Yes, it is obvious isnt it? We worked that out very quckly. That's why it wasn't on.

No writer likes to stick their neck out, as comedy is such a subjective business, but as a viewer I'm afraid i'd prefer our take on the story to yours.

Sorry.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Gee' on Fri Oct 27 00:33:18 BST 2000:

You make a point Nev Fountain, but not a good one. Your joke although slighty better than Steven's is still pretty shit.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev Fountain' on Fri Oct 27 00:53:23 BST 2000:

Well as I say, things are subjective.

I come on this forum to inform and put things in context, not to get attacked. You're obviously very bitter about something or other, and i've no wish to get in the way of you, as you lash out at the nearest person in such an offensive manner.

The 'shit' gag was one of about 10 we wrote in an hour. I wrote 30 gags for the News Quiz this morning, some good, some bad, some indifferent. I started writing comedy from scratch just like you and Steven, I worked at what I did, getting experience writing for many shows improving (I hope)all the time.

Some writers seem to think like Steve, that thinking up one, not very original, joke is an instant ticket into writing comedy. It's not, and as a script reader I have to dissavow people of this delusion. I try and do it in a straightforward, manner without being offensive. I see you have yet to master that skill. Perhaps it's something you can work on.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Fri Oct 27 01:01:43 BST 2000:

Uh, no, the 11 o clock show is embarassing. Even though it was incredibly obvious, it was still better than that 'hit the floor' one. It's up to standard if not higher than all the other jokes on the show. Christ, you even dragged up the Anne Widdecombe - Schnapps from Ice Warriors joke again you're that desperate. And John Prescott is fat and Cherie Blaire has a big mouth has been done to death on nearly every episode of the show. You're acting awfully big for your boots when in all fairness the jokes on the 11 o clock show go for obvious jokes, yet change the wording a little, usually sticking FUCK or SHIT in as many times as possible to give it an 'edge'.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Fri Oct 27 01:03:45 BST 2000:

By the way, I obviously though that joke was shit, and incredibly, incredibly obvious. But I could easily imagine Frank Skinner saying it and getting a laugh, the 11 o clock show version I couldn't imagine getting a laugh.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'JW' on Fri Oct 27 01:46:16 BST 2000:

On the subject of people submitting jokes to 11ocs and then having their submitted material plagiarised, I was present at an on-line chat with Iain Lee last year on Channel 4's site. A user made a really funny comment about Rod Hull & Emu. I have since seen Iain Lee use the joke and various derivatives thereof a number of times.
I guess the moral of the story is don't say anything funny around comedians especially if you can't be traced.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Nev Fountain' on Fri Oct 27 08:03:54 BST 2000:

>By the way, I obviously though that joke was shit, and incredibly, incredibly obvious. .

I didn't think it was obvious, your posting seemed pretty straight to me. Either you have access to a new 'super-irony' that I can't detect, or not very good at expressing yourself via the written word.

^But I could easily imagine Frank Skinner saying it and getting a laugh, the 11 o clock show version I couldn't imagine getting a laugh.

And what's your argument here? That humour is subjective, that the same gag can be shit somewhere and good somewhere else? I think that's MY argument..!

Gags are delicate flowers, not just affected by timing and the person who delivers it, it's also the construction, the length, what the last word in the gag sounds like, it's whether the audience is in the right frame of mind, how intelligent the audience is...

HIGNFY did two of our gags practically word for word last week - not their fault, that happens in topicial comedy. Thing is, you don't see people jumping up and down on this forum about the quality of the HIGNFY jokes.

A lot of it's to do with how well disposed you are to the programme in the first place;
you forgive a more if you begin 'on side'. It's very much like the plagiarism argument we had a while ago. If you like Reeves and Mortimor you say 'Reeves and Mortimor, carry on the glorious surreal tradition of Milligan and Bentine.' If you DON'T like them you say 'Reeves and Mortimor have just nicked all their stuff from Milligan and Bentine'.

This 'just swearing' stuff depresses me. It's post-pub telly, so it needs to be aggressive and direct, that's the 11 0'Clock show, that's what it is. If you don't like, don't watch.

But we don't just say, Anne Widdicombe - she's a cunt. I'm a live-and-let-live kind of person, I think people should say what they think, but I don't like misinterpretation and caracature..

The very first posting we had, before the show aired, from someone in the audience of the show said something very like 'it's terrible, all the jokes were William Hague -he's a cunt' I hope they've got some canned laughter ready. This saddened me because...

a)We've all made a conscious decision to get away from that type of thing, and we have. The word 'cunt' didn't even appear in the show. Of cours there's a lot of up-front stuff, but by and large (and this is a three nights a week topical show remember, so it's difficult to keep to a charter when you're under pressure) we've moved away from substituting jokes for insults.

b) The audience laughed like banshees throughout. No canned laughter was needed.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Fri Oct 27 10:43:03 BST 2000:

Uncharacteristically, Steven did have a point back there - some comics can make indifferent material sound funnier just from their delivery.

I can imagine Frank Skinner doing a lot of 11OCS material, and I agree he would get more laughs out of it. Why? Because he is a warm and engaging performer who clearly wants to ENTERTAIN people.

Try writing lines that you can imagine him saying.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Steven' on Fri Oct 27 10:53:49 BST 2000:

Mark and Lard were talking about how awful the 11 o clock show is the other week, and someone e mailed them saying he was present at the recording of one of the episodes, and when they watched it on the telly, they were SURE that there were 10 times more laughs than there were actually in the studio. I think it's quite obvious this happens, because for a lot of the joke the studio just chuckles slightly, yet for other, usually incredibly shit jokes, the audiance erupts into a massive cacophony of laughter, and I can't believe they are actually doing this realistically. So the 11 o clock show uses canned laughs, I'm fucking sure of it. And if they deny it, it's probably because they actually used canned laughs from the actual audiance, as in, they record them laughing at the warm up guy or whatever and re use the sounds.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'Jon' on Fri Oct 27 11:16:02 BST 2000:

Or maybe they just turn up the sound of the audience.

Subject: Re: 11OCS: A Response
Posted By 'THE ELIMINATOR' on Fri Oct 27 12:23:25 BST 2000:

>Or maybe they just turn up the sound of the audience.

Or maybe the studio audience just found the gag funnier than you did???

Incedentally, I got a joke on the show this week - and was credited for it. It just proves that if the producers like a joke, they will put it in the script. That's how writing works.

Maybe some of the people moaning about the quality of writing on the show should, instead of thinking up the odd low quality gag and being done with it - sit down every morning and try to write five or ten quality gags by 1 o'clock. I did it last week, and it's far from easy. But I did get a gag on.