Why the British Are Better at Satire • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#111

Post by bad_user » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 4:58 PM UTC

cJ0th wrote: post #86

bad_user wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Well, for what is worth, many Europeans, like the Germans, are even worse at satire and humor than Americans are. As a German, I don't agree. I think Germans get satire and humor. I'd say we are in that respect closer to the British than the American (But I have to admit that the Brits are light years ahead when it comes to everything entertaining) It's just that our media outlets are characterized by another Germa…

That was a semi-joke and your answer kind of proves my point :-)

Anyway, this is based on my interactions with a German corporation - I guess my sample is from the corporate world and most corporates, regardless of nationality, lack humor, because those business guys take themselves too seriously.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#112

Post by mkr-hn » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 5:09 PM UTC

john_other_john wrote: post #110

mkr-hn wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always felt like my humor doesn't fit my upbringing. The bakery at my good old southern grocery store had "Bavarian cream filled donuts." I asked the person working there how many Bavarians it takes. They never got it. But all the other Americans in my internet social group get it, so it's probably not a universal thing.

How many to make the donuts, or to milk the Bavarians and churn the cream?

It can go many ways. Including how many are turned into cream and used to fill the donut.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#113

Post by r00fus » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 6:23 PM UTC

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #57

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 wor…

We share the same viewpoint. When I meant long-run I meant in terms of seasons, not in terms of episodes per season (e.g. Dr. Who).

The US corporate pressure to produce is definitely the problem. There is little counterbalance in the US, whereas in the UK the BBC allows writers like Ianucci freedom to do what they feel is right.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#114

Post by coldtea » Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #56

coldtea wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's mostly because the Independence Day director was known for being very cost-effective and frugal. It was a blockbuster, but didn't start as a big spending production like the Titanic for example.

But even that is 10 times what Fargo cost already.

Sub 10 million have been small peanuts in Hollywood even in the eighties, by Fargo's time a movie was not even taken seriously by big studios if it had such a budget.

Heck -- an A-list actor would command 10-15 million just for himself.

Re: Why the British Are Better at Satire

#115

Post by jeremysmyth » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 12:19 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #114

TylerE wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's mostly because the Independence Day director was known for being very cost-effective and frugal. It was a blockbuster, but didn't start as a big spending production like the Titanic for example. But even that is 10 times what Fargo cost already. Sub 10 million have been small peanuts in Hollywood even in the eighties, by Fargo's time a movie was not even taken seriously by big studios if it had such a budget.…

Burn After Reading had Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Can't get much more A-list than that. It also had John Malkovich and Tilda Swinton, who are no lightweights. And it came in at a budget of under 40M.