Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the British Are Better at Satire

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#51

Post by coldtea »

TylerE wrote: post #47
coldtea wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MASH maybe. Burn After Reading and Fargo, not so much. Not that they weren't dark -- just that they weren't a success in any mainstream way, especially the first.

Fargo made over 8x it's budget in income on the original theatrical run. That's major success. For comparison, a traditional american "happy comedy", Happy Gilmore released the same year, made a third less despite costing almost twice as much.

>Fargo made over 8x it's budget in income on the original theatrical run. That's major success.

Well, it's budget was a tiny (by Hollywood) $7 million, so that's not saying much.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#52

Post by jussij »

r00fus wrote: post #41

Could it because the BBC (state owned television) effectively nurtures small series and lets them run for far longer than you would have in the US market, which suffers from both viewer and producer short attention span? Essentially, not trying to have a hit for every show results in a far greater overall success rate. If so, the analogy between the TV show market and startup scene could be instructive (i.e., nurture…

I think that has a lot to do with it.

Here in Oz we have the ABC which is the BBC equivalent in that too is state owned.

When it comes to all forms of locally grown TV, the ABC has a much better record of creating quality programs, when compared to the three major private broadcasters.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#54

Post by laumars »

r00fus wrote: post #41

Could it because the BBC (state owned television) effectively nurtures small series and lets them run for far longer than you would have in the US market, which suffers from both viewer and producer short attention span? Essentially, not trying to have a hit for every show results in a far greater overall success rate. If so, the analogy between the TV show market and startup scene could be instructive (i.e., nurture…

While there maybe some truth to that, it's also worth noting that we see the same with all our (British) terrestrial TV networks. Particularly channel 4, which has given us classics such as The IT Crowd, Father Ted, The Inbetweeners and Black Books.

Edit: and Brass Eye. How could I forgot Brass Eye when this topic is specifically about satire? Awesome show.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#55

Post by r00fus »

laumars wrote: post #54
r00fus wrote: post #41

Could it because the BBC (state owned television) effectively nurtures small series and lets them run for far longer than you would have in the US market, which suffers from both viewer and producer short attention span? Essentially, not trying to have a hit for every show results in a far greater overall success rate. If so, the analogy between the TV show market and startup scene could be instructive (i.e., nurture…

While there maybe some truth to that, it's also worth noting that we see the same with all our (British) terrestrial TV networks. Particularly channel 4, which has given us classics such as The IT Crowd, Father Ted, The Inbetweeners and Black Books. Edit: and Brass Eye. How could I forgot Brass Eye when this topic is specifically about satire? Awesome show.

Let's regress this a level further - creating lots of small shows with potentially longer runs could result in a better talent pool (both actors/directors/producers), benefiting even private networks.

How often do BBC actors work with other networks? If there's any cross-pollination there is an argument that the BBC's reach goes beyond it's own productions.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#56

Post by TylerE »

coldtea wrote: post #51
TylerE wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fargo made over 8x it's budget in income on the original theatrical run. That's major success. For comparison, a traditional american "happy comedy", Happy Gilmore released the same year, made a third less despite costing almost twice as much.

> Fargo made over 8x it's budget in income on the original theatrical run. That's major success. Well, it's budget was a tiny (by Hollywood) $7 million, so that's not saying much.

Back then that wasn't nearly as small as it sounds like. Even the massive summer CGI-fest of the year, Independence Day, was only a $75m budget.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#57

Post by mcjiggerlog »

r00fus wrote: post #41

Could it because the BBC (state owned television) effectively nurtures small series and lets them run for far longer than you would have in the US market, which suffers from both viewer and producer short attention span? Essentially, not trying to have a hit for every show results in a far greater overall success rate. If so, the analogy between the TV show market and startup scene could be instructive (i.e., nurture…

I think you've got it the wrong way round, actually. British shows typically run for a 6 episode series and then might go several years before a new series is produced. The Thick Of It has had 24 episodes since its inception in 2005, whereas its US adaption has already had 28 since 2012. Armando Ianucci (the writer) has straight up stated that he won't write any more The Thick Of It until he feels he has material worthy of new episodes.

I think it's the US networks putting pressure on writers to produce produce produce which ends up being the difference between the perfection of The Thick Of It and the greatness of Veep (in my opinion).

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#58

Post by rikkus »

rhino369 wrote: post #2

I wonder how difference between TV show productions affects this. Broadcoast TV shows in America are expected to run 22 episodes a year. In the Thick of It has made about that many episodes over 7.5 years. I don't think you can get people to watch that much biting satire in such a small time period. But I think in the end, American audiences want to see the good in people, especially the main characters. If not good,…

A good example of 'seeing the good in people' is the difference between The Office and its US version. The former is bleak and even the supposedly 'nice' characters are quite unpleasant in their own ways. In the US version, everyone's good at heart. Except Ryan.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#59

Post by SeanDav »

At times my work has brought me into contact with Americans and in general they just do not get sarcasm and satire. Obviously not true of everyone but in general in my experience, Americans (not sure about Canadians) take things that you say very literally. Take my advice, when dealing with people from the USA, as a default, avoid irony/sarcasm/satire and even humour until or unless you know they will appreciate it. Not just in a business environment, (where it is a bad idea to attempt this with anyone) but all initial interaction.

Not a crticism, just a reality.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#60

Post by bad_user »

SeanDav wrote: post #59

At times my work has brought me into contact with Americans and in general they just do not get sarcasm and satire. Obviously not true of everyone but in general in my experience, Americans (not sure about Canadians) take things that you say very literally. Take my advice, when dealing with people from the USA, as a default, avoid irony/sarcasm/satire and even humour until or unless you know they will appreciate it.…

Well, for what is worth, many Europeans, like the Germans, are even worse at satire and humor than Americans are.
Post reply on HN