Film, Media & TV11 mins 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.
11:46 Thu 06th Jan 2011
I used to find him funny but not anymore. The first time he guest-presented on NMTB he did make me laugh although he did sail quite close to the wind. I didn't watch Monday nights show but judging by the things he has said about Harvey, Down Syndrome, Baby P and now cancer, he needs to tone it down or find some other form of work.
I never liked Bernard Manning. Couldn't stand looking at him let alone listening to him.
I never liked Bernard Manning. Couldn't stand looking at him let alone listening to him.
I've said it before but... Family Guy is infinitely and consistently more outrageous, more tasteless and far more shocking than FB will ever be and the amount of people that claim to be shocked and appalled by FB but not Family Guy (which a lot of them will admit to liking) leaves me baffled. Perhaps there's something to say for the medium in which humour is delivered, gruff scottish ginger = bad but homicidal cartoon baby = good! (I'm joking about the latter of course but I think the medium the humour is delivered is a possibility.
I think Family Guy is funnier.
I think Family Guy is funnier.
Come on ummm - you cannot justify a verbal attack on a child, or indeed his mother, on the basis that fame and publciity makes her a legitimate target. the fact that it was offered as something to laughed at makes it even more repugnant - if such a thing were possible.
Jordan is well aware of her place in the celebrity industry, and she markets herself with skill and a welcome degree of self-deprication. That does not entitle anyone to 'joke' about her child in this way.
And to return to your justification that 'the audience laughed' - if I skinned a puppy on television and called it 'comedy', I guarentee I could find you an audiendce who would laugh - maybe out of nervous reaction based on horror and outrage, but they would laugh.
Well that's OK then.
Jordan is well aware of her place in the celebrity industry, and she markets herself with skill and a welcome degree of self-deprication. That does not entitle anyone to 'joke' about her child in this way.
And to return to your justification that 'the audience laughed' - if I skinned a puppy on television and called it 'comedy', I guarentee I could find you an audiendce who would laugh - maybe out of nervous reaction based on horror and outrage, but they would laugh.
Well that's OK then.
-- answer removed --
'Silly'? Hardly.
My point is - you can justify anything in your own mind - that does not mean that everyone else is obliged to agree with you simply because it is your point of view.
I know i am hammering the point, but it is valid - just because something amuses a group of people is not in itself a justification for offering it for consumption on national television.
People used to turn up to executions for a day out - we simply move on as a society, and what we see is acceptable changes accordingly.
Being outrageous in the guise of 'edgy comedy' is simply not justified, and an audience for it does not make it so - as i have opined already, you can find an audience for just about anything, but just because something can be done does not mean that it automatically should be done.
Let Mr Boyle try making a joke about David Cameron's loss of a child - see how many people are laughing then.
But people will laugh, so that's OK then.
My point is - you can justify anything in your own mind - that does not mean that everyone else is obliged to agree with you simply because it is your point of view.
I know i am hammering the point, but it is valid - just because something amuses a group of people is not in itself a justification for offering it for consumption on national television.
People used to turn up to executions for a day out - we simply move on as a society, and what we see is acceptable changes accordingly.
Being outrageous in the guise of 'edgy comedy' is simply not justified, and an audience for it does not make it so - as i have opined already, you can find an audience for just about anything, but just because something can be done does not mean that it automatically should be done.
Let Mr Boyle try making a joke about David Cameron's loss of a child - see how many people are laughing then.
But people will laugh, so that's OK then.
-- answer removed --
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.