Can Someone Help Please, Light Bulbs.
How it Works0 min ago
Is Frankie Boyle the new Bernard Manning?
Is there now a strong case for getting Frankie Boyle off the telly in the same way that broadcasters turned their backs on Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson?
http://www.dailymail....nd-The-Buzzcocks.html
Or does his 'bleeding edge' style of comedy push the boundaries in a way that actually advances comedy?
http://www.dailymail....nd-The-Buzzcocks.html
Or does his 'bleeding edge' style of comedy push the boundaries in a way that actually advances comedy?
Answers
I think ludwig has hit on the main point about Boyle's controversy.
As ludwig says, genuine satire - which is designed to make you think as much as laugh - of the sort produced by Chris Morris - is genuinely pushing the boundaries, rather than Boyle's somewhat smug attempts to upset people.
As ludwig says, genuine satire - which is designed to make you think as much as laugh - of the sort produced by Chris Morris - is genuinely pushing the boundaries, rather than Boyle's somewhat smug attempts to upset people.
10:46 Thu 06th Jan 2011
Actually, it isn't simple, and therin lies the problem.
As a society, we must walk the line between freedom of expression, and protection of our vulnerable individuals, which is an endless difficult problem addressed on a daily basis.
I can see the apparent logic of your statement, but that doesn't quite answer the issue here.
Frankie Boyle's popularity and success are not in question. What is questionable is the rightness of his humour being broadcast on mianstream TV.
I repeat an earlier point - FB should join Roy Chubby Brown who is massively popular, and who's material is available to paying audiences, with posters that confirm 'If easily offended, stay away'.
As a society, we must walk the line between freedom of expression, and protection of our vulnerable individuals, which is an endless difficult problem addressed on a daily basis.
I can see the apparent logic of your statement, but that doesn't quite answer the issue here.
Frankie Boyle's popularity and success are not in question. What is questionable is the rightness of his humour being broadcast on mianstream TV.
I repeat an earlier point - FB should join Roy Chubby Brown who is massively popular, and who's material is available to paying audiences, with posters that confirm 'If easily offended, stay away'.
I have never advocating banning FB - i think that kind of sledgehammer censorship should be used with extreme caution.
No, my issue is the fact that FB is allowe national airtime under the umbrella of 'comedy', when you would have to seriously wonder about the humour of some of his material.
Call it 'edgy', 'bleeding edge', 'alternative', or what ever, but putting it out under the guise of something to be laughed at - that's simply not acceptable.
No, my issue is the fact that FB is allowe national airtime under the umbrella of 'comedy', when you would have to seriously wonder about the humour of some of his material.
Call it 'edgy', 'bleeding edge', 'alternative', or what ever, but putting it out under the guise of something to be laughed at - that's simply not acceptable.
What is bad taste, is subjective.
One person may find a joke about the Queen very offensive, while it might not bother the next person. The comedy should not be censorred because it offends one group, providing the material is within the law.
FB picks unusual, and often, out of bounds subject matter. That deliberate aim to shock again will devide audiences, some will not think it is clever, while others will find it refreshing. It is subjective.
The people who want him banned appear to be saying "I don't find it funny, so no one else must watch". They should let it stand. If the show loses viewers in a big way, it will not return. All the headlines are doing is attracting people to the show who want to be shocked, and then them saying "it is shocking, it must be banned".
I assume the shows are checked to make sure they do not break any laws. There is no law that says something can be banned if it is not funny. Viewers (and advertisers) are the only ones to have the power of keeping it off the telly, by not watching it.
The people who have not watched it, but are getting their outrage second hand, should be ignored. Tabloid campaigns just keep the sheep busy.
One person may find a joke about the Queen very offensive, while it might not bother the next person. The comedy should not be censorred because it offends one group, providing the material is within the law.
FB picks unusual, and often, out of bounds subject matter. That deliberate aim to shock again will devide audiences, some will not think it is clever, while others will find it refreshing. It is subjective.
The people who want him banned appear to be saying "I don't find it funny, so no one else must watch". They should let it stand. If the show loses viewers in a big way, it will not return. All the headlines are doing is attracting people to the show who want to be shocked, and then them saying "it is shocking, it must be banned".
I assume the shows are checked to make sure they do not break any laws. There is no law that says something can be banned if it is not funny. Viewers (and advertisers) are the only ones to have the power of keeping it off the telly, by not watching it.
The people who have not watched it, but are getting their outrage second hand, should be ignored. Tabloid campaigns just keep the sheep busy.
Gromit - I'm pretty sure if they brought back 'Minipops' and 'The black and white minstrel show' there'd be a sizeable fan base for both - and I'm prettty sure they'd be legal, but that doesn't mean they should do it.
At some point somone has to say - hold on, it doesn't matter that there are people out there who like this cr&p. It's wrong to broadcast it.
At some point somone has to say - hold on, it doesn't matter that there are people out there who like this cr&p. It's wrong to broadcast it.
Excellent points ludwig and jack - it reminds me of the line in the first 'Jurassic Park' film where Jeff Goldblum's character says "Yes, you can do it, but does that mean you should do it?'.
Yes, taste is subjective, but can you honestly say that his observation about Harvey and Jordan could be perceived by anyone as 'funny'?
Shocking? OK. Scandalous? Yep. Cutting Edge? Edge of what?
There are plenty of commedians who are making humour out of various situations which some may consider unfit for a humourous approach, but who on here will stand up for FB and confirm that they thought this remark was amusing, and made them laugh?
And no retreating into the "It was one joke (!) in the whole routine ..." because that is not an adequate defence.
OK - over to you ...
Yes, taste is subjective, but can you honestly say that his observation about Harvey and Jordan could be perceived by anyone as 'funny'?
Shocking? OK. Scandalous? Yep. Cutting Edge? Edge of what?
There are plenty of commedians who are making humour out of various situations which some may consider unfit for a humourous approach, but who on here will stand up for FB and confirm that they thought this remark was amusing, and made them laugh?
And no retreating into the "It was one joke (!) in the whole routine ..." because that is not an adequate defence.
OK - over to you ...
There will only ever be one Bernard Manning (RIP)
Boyle is not fit to be mentioned in the same sentence as Manning
Comedians tell offensive jokes.....fact.......it's how they make a living.....so what if those jokes offend people?......they are just words and as has been said earlier if you are easily offended then don't watch/listen
Boyle is not fit to be mentioned in the same sentence as Manning
Comedians tell offensive jokes.....fact.......it's how they make a living.....so what if those jokes offend people?......they are just words and as has been said earlier if you are easily offended then don't watch/listen
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.