New Red Dwarf Series Threatened By the Twitter Era 228
An anonymous reader writes "The announcement that the new series of Red Dwarf is likely to be shot in front of a studio audience, which hasn't happened for the show since 1998, has made one of the show's actors wary of the practicality of it. Commenting on his blog, Robert Llewellyn, who plays servile robot Kryten in the hit British SF comedy show notes: 'The fear among the producers now is that it's impossible to imagine an audience of around 400 people at the recording of a TV show like Red Dwarf, where nobody does a bit of a hint on Twitter, or sneaks a picture on Facebook or posts a bit of badly shot video on YouTube.'"
This is why (Score:5, Funny)
This is why we can't have nice things.
Re:This is why (Score:4, Insightful)
I always thought viral marketing was a good thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes. The last series was pretty bad, then the two 'special' episodes were just dreadful.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is why (Score:5, Informative)
The jump to the Starbug-only stories in Series 6 is where it started to fumble, but the writing was still high quality and they made a none-the-less fun show out of it. Series 7 is where the writing team split, and you can tell. There's less jokes and more sci-fi. It's also evident by the tie-in novels. Rob Grant (the funny one) wrote Backwards, which is by far and away the better one, focusing less on the sci-fi elements and more on the characters. Doug Naylors "Last Human" was very sci-fi heavy (soft sci-fi, but still sci-fi), very dramatic, quite dark and in some parts, it didn't "Feel" like Red Dwarf, atleast until Series 7 came along, then it did feel like it.
Despite the 2 multi-parters knocking a series 8 from 8 episodes down to 5 from the usual 6, I still liked it. They backtracked slightly towards the feel of series 1, with more prison gags, while keeping the action-oriented storylines. It was a nice balance. Then they threw it out the window for Back To Earth which, to me, was Red Dwarfs "Star Trek V" moment. I hope the next series will be our Star Trek VI moment, and that we won't end up with a Generations moment when they kill the cast off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Centre of galaxy, "finding God" (really trapped being, revealed to be an exiled Q in books (as is the entity past the galactic barrier, and why there's a barrier in the first place...)
It was pretty damn terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
You just made it sound much better than it was. Maybe you should have had a try at the screenplay.
Re: (Score:2)
People always shit all over Star Trek V, but I really liked it. Many of the episodes of the old show had quirky stories that weren't afraid to achieve that interestingness through a callous disregard for making sense, and so did Star Trek V.
Rereading that, it doesn't sound like praise, but it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Infinity welcomes careful drivers, Better than life and Backwards are all great books though, well worth reading. I'd rank them close to H2G2, a bit more lowbrow but still funny.
Re: (Score:2)
You read Colony? Rob Grants solo book? Suitably dark AND funny. It's still a group of idiot misfits suck in deep space, but it's a decent read.
Re: (Score:3)
What made Red Dwarf good was the 80s British humour, the fact that nothing had really changed much in the future and so the jokes revolved around modern life situations.
For anyone who doesn't know before the 80s a lot of British humour was basically racist, sexist or based on some other kind of prejudice/stereotype. Then a new generation of comedians came along who did observational jokes. Ben Elton is one of the most well known. Red Dwarf was a refinement of earlier concepts like The Young Ones, Lister bas
Re: (Score:2)
It suffered later on, when they started to lose sight of this and you get the impression that they were writing a humorous sci-fi show (note the change of focus) that didn't bear scrutiny, and wasn't as funny as it used to be.
I suspect the most geeky, obsessive hardcore fans liked the sci-fi aspects (whereas those who enjoyed it for the comedy were
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well yeah, me too. I mean, there's always hope, right?
And even if it's rubbish, there are going to be a few decent moments. maybe, hopefully, possibly?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We actually had a "Welcome Back Red Dwarf" party when Back To Earth was shown. We had about 10 people round to watch the first episode. No-one turned up for episode two.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Even more shocking is that the new series might be doomed because of a sensationalist headline on slashdot!
The fact that they are doing the new series is worthy enough news, you don't need to build up a non-existing story to promote it. Even the summary shows what a crock the headline is when it says that one of the show's actors was "wary of the practicality of it". If it was such a concern, then they could just not film it in front of an audience.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the perceived downfall of Red Dwarf ties in with the omission of the studio audience.
It has long been touted by comedy writers such as Richard Curtis (Blackadder) that a studio audience gives them a very solid gauge of what is working and gives them feedback on how things could be done better.
Plus, news that "there will be a new series of Red Dwarf" is one for the TV websites. A story on a technology site about concerns about social media accessibility and it's effect on TV series production is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that they did actually have a studio audience, but they gave the show as much laughter as it deserved. As soon as you go so self-referential as the mini series did, then it becomes more cringeworthy than funny. It just looks line a fanfic film.
I think that if you get to the stage of hearing the audience response before finding out if something is funny, then you aren't making a masterpiece. But what would I know? My favourite seasons were 1 and 2, which most people think were the worst. It was bef
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reliably informed that there's never been a Corination Street crossover (which is what it was) that was worth watching. Even a Dr Who one with Leela in it fell flat.
The final series with the prison jokes wasn't their best but was certainly picking up towards the end.
Faraday Cage? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would it be plausible to record in a Faraday Cage or equivalent, negating both cell phone and internet device access for the duration of the recording?
I can understand the appeal of actors being able to react subtly to the audience - but I always found the blurts of audience sounds annoying - ESPECIALLY in shows with canned laughter or artificially "enhanced" audience reactions.
Red Dwarf seems like it would be better with a smaller audience of insiders anyway - comedians playing to other comedians are always filthier, funnier, and less self-censoring, and I think that would be a better result.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Faraday Cage? (Score:5, Interesting)
A faraday cage isn't going to stop them from actually recording it on their phone and uploading it later.
Re:Faraday Cage? (Score:5, Funny)
Supposing we built a large wooden badger...
Re: (Score:2)
I foresee an EMP device entering into the picture at some point.
Re: (Score:3)
No, since they would record and post later, the only sensible solution is metal detectors at the gate.
Perhaps the TSA could join the production?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this.
it might be tricky with things like radio mics and such, but i can imagine they can hide the gear in a quiet corner inside the cage. i'm surprised the faraday cage thing hasn't been done at many other venues where mobile phones are an annoyance.
of course they could post the scripts online before taping, or release artwork, modes, stills or synopses before the fact where, while not giving anything away, provide a value-add and enough of an appetizer to prevent people spoiling it.
i think the main fandom
Re: (Score:2)
Also, health and safety wouldn't allow it nowadays. You have to be able to call emergency services and a faraday cage would block that. Same goes for cinemas.
Oh no free advertising! (Score:5, Insightful)
All Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube posts will do is generate extra hype for the show at no extra cost to the producers. No one is going to watch a shitty YouTube cell phone capture instead of the actual show. Free advertising is always good and word of mouth is extremely valuable. If someone sees a commercial for a TV show they just file that away with all the other advertising they ignore. If they get the pitch from someone they know or better someone with similar interests they're way more likely to pay attention. If I was making a TV show I'd beg my audience to talk about it on every channel they had available.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely. Leaked punch lines and secrets are only going to server to generate publicity. If anything, I would chose to film the first ones live, even if the rest of the series wouldn't be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not worried about piracy, they're worried about spoilers.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that's exactly what they are doing, it also seems to be working.
I am VERY cross... (Score:5, Funny)
I am very cross. You shouldn't have run away from me. What are we going to do with those twitter posters?
I have an idea, but who would clean up the mess?
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Red Dwarf is a classic Sci Fi series and something I grew up on and still enjoy today, but it is clearly a series that doesn't work any more. They tried to revive it before when they did a mini series and it was by far the worst episode(s) of the entire thing.
People always cry for remakes and updated versions of older TV series, but some things just don't work in the current climate. Doctor Who is a prime example of a TV series that doesn't work in the modern climate, so when it was brought back it was massively retoned to suit modern TV. But Red Dwarf can't be retoned, when they tried it, it just didn't work. Some times you just need a budget of £10 an episode and a dude wearing a spandex suit rather than massive CGI scenes and unlimited funds.
Red Dwarf is an all time classic and something I hope anything I spawn will get to watch and enjoy as I did, but it feels like the actors have no careers any more (especially Craig Charles, who is now badly dubbing Japanese game shows for cable channels) and just want to milk sucess 30 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously don't understand what you mean by 'doesn't work any more'.
If they have actually got some funny scripts then hurrah. I think it was the material, not the format, which spoiled the specials.
Re: (Score:3)
I seriously don't understand what you mean by 'doesn't work any more'.
Since Rob Grant ceased to be involved with the writing (after series 6) the quality of the episodes has been generally poor. As it's now been over 10 years since the series was on (Dave specials excluded) they would likely have to assume viewers weren't familiar with the characters and do a lot of work setting up their personas which might bore fans of the existing episodes. The writers may also struggle to come up with anything new to write about after 8 series as they can't cover "relationship humour" wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
[I]t feels like the actors have no careers any more (especially Craig Charles, who is now badly dubbing Japanese game shows for cable channels) and just want to milk sucess 30 years ago.
Craig Charles has been on the UK soap Coronation Street since 2005 [wikipedia.org]. Given it's one of the most popular shows on UK TV, I'd say his career has significantly improved since the days of Red Dwarf.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with ratings. Welcome to TVland.
Re: (Score:3)
That land being the whole world you mean?
Shit like Coronation Street, Friends, Sex and the City has always rated better than science comedies simply because there are more brainless drones in the world than there are people who appreciate science enough to get the jokes in science comedies.
It doesn't matter where you are, mass market stuff that anyone can get into is always going to do better than more targetted sciency stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Particularly in the UK where soaps are much higher quality productions and are held to a much higher standard than in North America, and particularly as UK series tend to be short (maybe only 7/8 episodes rather than the US' usual ~22 - 24 episodes).
Working in a soap, particularly one like Coronation Street which is about the longest running soap going and regularly wins awards is good work in the UK, not only is the salary regular but it's high too.
As I pointed out elsewhere, you can be sure that Craig Cha
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably because the last time they touched it since the end of series 6, they messed it up horrifically.
Series 1 was not fantastic, but then both the writers and the actors were still finding their feet. Series 2 was OK, but it definitely needed the refreshment that took place at the beginning of series 3.
4 and 5 were also great series. By series 6, however, it was pretty obvious they were running out of gags. 7 and 8... ugh.
Then they remastered series 1 and 2. The net result was:
Scene 1 - characters sat around wearing grey boiler suits on a grey set which was obviously cobbled together some time in the 1980's from a bit of scrap wood and a special deal on grey paint.
Scene 2 - characters wandering around a fantastically cheap grey set.
Cut to swishy modern CGI spaceship animation with lots of colour and pretty FX. Maybe a starfield in the background and a few bright colourful planets.
Scene 3 - character walks in on a cheap & nasty grey set.
The mental jarring was painful.
Then they did "Back to Earth". I couldn't watch that through, it was so bad, and I don't think I'm alone.
Re: (Score:3)
The sets were meant to be cheap and nasty and grey. The whole premise was that these guys were living what would seem to be the dream life to many, visiting faraway planets on a mining ship the size of a city with advanced AI, yet to them it was just a tedious day job. The original plan was to tone it down even more - you wouldn't even know they were on a spaceship, it was meant to just look like any corridor in any office in the country. The mental jarring between the boring scenery inside and the stunning
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but it is clearly a series that doesn't work any more.
The show, the comedy, the characters all work fine, all the 3 episode special proved is that if you use a shitty script it will still stink regardless of the quality of the cast and how much the series is loved. The original series still works today extremely well, it is one of the few comedy series I can watch over and still enjoy the humor.
Re: (Score:2)
"but it feels like the actors have no careers any more (especially Craig Charles, who is now badly dubbing Japanese game shows for cable channels) and just want to milk sucess 30 years ago."
To be fair on the guy, back in the 90s during Red Dwarf's peak he was victim of a false rape allegation which delayed the later series and harmed the ratings somewhat as a result. After that he seemed to dissapear from public view somewhat.
Still, since 2005 he's been on the UK's longest runnning, most popular, and regula
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The WWF (now WWE) has had to deal with this for ages, as their shows are often broadcast days after they're actually performed.
Their solution? Do jack shit.
The fans who don't want to be spoiled, don't look up the spoilers.
The fans who do, do.
Nobody really loses out unless someone on the cast has an unexplained need for secrecy. This isn't Survivor.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, people who like the WWF usually can't afford computers, anyway, so there's no chance of them finding out until it's aired.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I wouldn't consider myself a wrestling fan (the only wrestlers I can name are The Rock and Hulk Hogan), as I've only been to a few wrestling events, but they are quite enjoyable. I saw midget wrestling once and that was more entertaining than it should have been.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Funny)
It always used to amuse me that my homophobic brother watched WWE while disapproving of me watching Queer as Folk.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. How often can you solve problems by just getting rid of the fear ?
People are afraid all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
New Media New Model (Score:2)
'The fear among the producers now is that it's impossible to imagine an audience of around 400 people at the recording of a TV show like Red Dwarf, where nobody does a bit of a hint on Twitter, or sneaks a picture on Facebook or posts a bit of badly shot video on YouTube.'
Wow just wow . How about adapting and embracing new technology instead of moving a step backwards ? This confirms still, how old fashioned some in the entertainment industry think. E.g. why not offer a 'live' showing per stream in HD ? If it is a good show and not some _crap_ then why are they so afraid of twitter, youtube, etc etc. Actually if enough people talk positive about it isn't that a bonus for the show? There are many possibilities how to adapt to new models but instead of thinking about the posit
Robot Audience (Score:2)
They could always just fill the seats with robots.
Then at the flip of an executive-controlled switch, they could all burst into cold, robotic laughter. Even better, special appearances from Robot Wars contestants could make their way into the program to give the audience something to relate to. Kryten might even end up the next Justin Bieber.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why they would waste money on robots when Kryten has several perfectly good spare heads available.
Record the audience separately? (Score:2)
It obviously "just wouldn't be the same", but if you're that worried about it...
(Which apparently they aren't, because according to the summary, the only one known to be worried i
Re: (Score:2)
Just use samples of the nerds laughing from Revenge of the Nerds. No one would notice.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a crazy idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
How about, I don't know, getting rid of one of the single most annoying thing about British comedies. The damn studio audience. I swear they bus in the most idiotic people around for them. I've heard the people involved with I.T. Crowd mentioning that they have to give a lecture to the audience to try not laughing at anything too dumb. In particular I remember hearing someone mention being exasperated because the audience would laugh at toilets. Not doing anything with a toilet, just, apparently, the fact that a toilet could exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, so? (Score:3)
As to the show itself, even though I thought the old cast was fantastic, go for a new one. Obviously base it on the original British version, not that horrible American version that never got released.
And as a small note, even though I loved the show, that last thing they did,"Back to Earth", was horrible and should be forgotten with as much prejudice as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Rimmer Experience single handedly justifies the existence of Series 7
Re: (Score:2)
Just watch the old ones (Score:2)
Whenever they reboot, respin, retcon, or remake something I love, I'm usually just happier watching what I love. The original Red Dwarf episodes are amazing. If a recombobulation ever does come to be, have a watch party and pop in the classic.
Problem solved! (Score:2)
Just borrow a TSA squad - complete with embarrassing scanner - from the USA. That'll fix it. Leave your guns AND your gadgets (and your privacy) at the door, buddy!
Bear in mind that Llewellyn is Nice But Dim (Score:3)
He's a likeable chap, but not the sharpest droid in the box. To wit, he's rabidly in favour of electric vehicles, to the point where he accuses anyone pointing out the obvious flaws with current vehicles - production costs, bad and reducing range, battery recycling issues, and that the vast majority of the electricity still comes from fossil source - as being biased shills.
So, well intentioned fellow, but rather superficial in the thinking department.
Has anybody told Graham Linehan? (Score:3, Insightful)
wont matter (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? (Score:3)
Use that to create buzz and get people more excited about the whole thing.
Yet another example of someone not getting the Internet. Nothing to see here, move along.
Back to Live Television? (Score:3)
who wants set laughter anyway? (Score:3)
Honestly, surely it can't just be me who thought the audience laughter canned or not was the worst thing about Red Dwarf by far.
Shoot it without an audience, and don't add any recorded laughter either.
Solves both problems.
Paranoid anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
The people watching are fans the people seeking out the sneak peeks, virals, bloopers, etc are also fans. Its not like they are going to loose anything by letting this stuff get out. Most fan sites are good about hiding "spoilers" for those that don't want to know..and for those that do all it does is generate hype and buzz...which usually is something niche programming clamors for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty sure they're more worried about spoilers.
Re:duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone who watches Red Dwarf for the plot is missing the point. It's like watching Twilight for the sex. All that can really get out of a pre-screener like this are a few good jokes, which should hopefully convince the potential viewer to tune in anyway.
Movies have dealt with this for years. It's called Some-Of-Your-Audience-Sees-It-Before-The-Rest. Movies are still good movies. Red Dwarf will survive.
Re:duh (Score:5, Interesting)
"Some-Of-Your-Audience-Sees-It-Before-The-Rest"
The point they're making is that there is a vast difference between 'Some" and "Most". It is possible to send footage, commentary almost instantly to hundreds of thousands of people in this modern world. This wasn't the case 10-15 years ago.
Maybe this is the reason modern TV series filmed in front of audiences are so bland, is because if there were any twists some dickhead will always feel the need to shout it to the world through the many social media options available to them.
Personally I've never understood (and never cared enough, really) why TV magazines insist on telling the reader what is due to take place in their soap of choice over the coming week.
Are people really unable to WAIT for anything any more? What is the achievement to be made from demonstrating that you know what happens in a TV programme, film or game?
Re: (Score:2)
It really isn't that big a deal though.
I went to see "Avenue Q" a while back having no idea what it was.
I did recognise one of the songs "the internet is for porn" though which had become a bit of a meme.
when I got home I looked it up and found a whole pile of shaky phone camera videos of the show which were years old.
yet they in no way detracted from my enjoyment of the show when I first saw it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the number of people on here who make it a point to whine about how they have to wait X days, weeks or months to see a tv show or movie which is shown in one part of the world but not another, and who go out of their way to find a torrent or some other pirated means to watch said show before it is available in their area, I'd say the answer is no.
When combined with the number of people who use texting or IM almost exclusively to co
Re:duh (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, don't watch the spoilers?
As long as they are not posted on the 8 o-clock news or broadcasted on the radio, I would call them teasers, not spoilers.
spoilers (Score:3)
sometimes it's hard to avoid spoilers, especially when perusing other info related to the franchise, the kind of stuff that big fans would care to look at.
Re: (Score:3)
That was pretty much my first thought, too. Why should I want to read spoilers if I follow a show? Sure, I want to know how it continues, how that cliffhanger resolves, but I want to see it unfold.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoiler alerts violate the first amendment, Jimmy Wales says so!
Re: (Score:2)
We get british stuff ages after it airs in the UK. And the UK often gets our stuff ages later.
eztv.it
My work is done here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I Hate "Humour" (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm afraid, as a Brit, I am now legally required to murder you.
1) For liking Monty Python after the 70's have passed.
2) For linking Monty Python to English humour.
3) For thinking that any modern UK comedy show follows Monty Python.
Monty Python was "funny" in the 70's because it was outrageous. Their three worst sketches were the most outrageous and the ones that everyone remembers. 99% of what they produced was absolute shite. They are not, in and of themselves, funny any more anyway. The films? Pah. Basically designed to be outrageous / controversial with a few good lines thrown in. Follow the example of XKCD who understand this: http://xkcd.com/16/ [xkcd.com] Anyone caught with the words "Ni", "Very Naughty Boy" or "It's dead" should be shot on sight - it's like schoolkids that think they're cool because they have a designer jacket that ALL the schoolkids are wearing. Few UK people remember MP, fewer discuss them out of anything more than nostalgia, and even fewer think they are "English" humour.
What you fail to miss is that Monty Python is the exact OPPOSITE of the proper English humour. That's why it was funny at the time. Proper English comedy has nobody doing weird things. It's mostly sitcoms or standup in perfectly ordinary scenarios (e.g. a shopkeeper in a shop, a market trader on a stall, etc.). If it's "surreal", chances are it comes from the crap, outrageous side of English humour (e.g. Little Britain, etc.). However, things like Red Dwarf, Blackadder (Series 2 onwards), Only Fools & Horses (historically, but too many re-runs), etc. are funny not because of the situation, or because of slapstick, or because of "weird stuff" - the comedy is mostly background and almost all of it in simple dialogue between two people. A "newer" example would be Not Going Out with Lee Mack and Tim Vine but you'd have to watch several series to get into it, especially if you have trouble with the accents. It can't be written down or recited or told to people, because it's about inflection, and facial expression, and intangible stuff, but if it is funny to someone it's because they've SEEN it and are reminded of their reaction to it at the time. It's as much the comedian delivering the line as the comedy itself - this is why Rowan Atkinson is a comedy genius and Michael Palin (despite being in the original Monty Python line-up) films documentaries about travel. John Cleese *can* "get it", especially now, but it's more Bond-film-style humour in his case, not one-man-on-his-own.
Any fan of British comedy will instantly recognise things like these clips below but they are ONLY funny if you've actually seen the joke, delivered first in its original form, in its entirety, beforehand:
Red Dwarf, while on "Blue Alert": "Red alert sir? Are you entirely sure? It does mean changing the bulb."
Only Fools and Horses (while picking up girls in a bar): "You've got to impress 'em, talk about money" , "Yeah? I found one of those old five-pound notes the other day."
The Two Ronnies: "Four candles?" "There you are: four candles." "No, no, no, FOUR CANDLES" "Well, there you are, four candles." "NO, handles for forks."
Otherwise, it's just a bad Christmas-cracker joke.
Chances are, as a "yank", you've probably never seen anything truly British and actually funny, because you don't import them (only the crap). The US pilot of Red Dwarf was a travesty because the US networks wanted so many changes it wasn't funny any more - seriously go hunt down one episode of Red Dwarf and the US pilot and then watch them one after another - and that was AFTER a revolt including script re-write by the only original cast member to still be involved in the US pilot by that point.
You also need to give anything funny at least 4 episodes of your time. It takes me that long to "get" things like Friends, or Frasier (yuck!), or Just Shoot Me, or Ally McBeal (and you accuse us of weird stuff?) or anything else that's ever been available over here and
Re:I Hate "Humour" (Score:5, Informative)
I'm afraid, as a Brit, I find your post to be such an embarrassment to our nation that I must ask you go into a quiet room with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver, and do the right thing.
Surreal and nonsensical humour requires that you enjoy the "different", are not so concerned with what is "proper", and don't need at least 4 episodes of preparatory material before you can "get" the joke. Don't criticise what you can't understand. Let's take a brief tour of exaggeration, silliness, farce and slapstick in British comedy:
18th century: Jonathan Swift writes about midgets and giants to satirise the pomposity of Brits obsessed with what is "proper".
19th century: Gilbert & Sullivan based entire plots on ideas like a fully grown pirate being only 5 years old, having been born on Feb 29th.
20th century: in the 50s, The Goon Show goes surreal, blazing the path 18 years before Python. Spike Milligan is famous both for being surreal and for writing funny books which do not need to be acted out to be funny, and Peter Sellers is famous for his over-the-top characters. The Two Ronnies relied upon "stupid costumes, over-exaggerated characters [and] nonsensical situations" for 16 years. Eric Morecambe, also drawing in many millions of viewers with Ernie Wise for 15 years, was famous for slapstick.
We're now in the 21st century. We still have several of The Goodies, another surreal 70s show, as regulars on I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue in its 54th series, with guests such as the ridiculous and surreal Ross Noble. How much more bloody "proper" and "English" can you get than Radio Four on a Sunday afternoon?
It's about time to get down from your ivory high chair and catch up with the past few centuries of what us Brits think is funny. Don't be the guy giving the rest of us a reputation for having a stick up our arse.