Jump to content

Harry Hill

saint_stevo

By saint_stevo,
in The Muppet Show

 Share

Recommended Posts

Durleyfos

Durleyfos

Posted
Posted
Agreed. I now watch normal tv programmes and wonder if he or his people will have noticed something I have just noticed and whether it will make his show.

 

Me too!

 

Yeah, Burp is one of those rare programmes like The Simpsons and Crimewatch that both me and the kiddies can sit down on the sofa and enjoy together. He's also brightened up You've been Framed very nicely.

 

Yep, that hour of Saturday early evening telly is pretty good.

 

It goes down hill rapidly after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeff leopard

jeff leopard

Posted
Posted
His half hour comedy show was also good.

 

his first series for channel four was a work of genius, things got a bit tired after that but he's still better than 99% of the cuhnts on ITV.

 

I went out for a drive with my Nan the other day, she was fine whilst we went along straight road but as soon as we approached a corner she started screaming 'WERE GOING TOO FAST, WE'RE GOING TO DIE'. When we got back on straight road, she was fine again but as soon as we approached another bend, 'WERE GOING TOO FAST, WE'RE GOING TO DIE'. Anyway, after some time I said, 'Look Nan, stop the car and let me drive'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
his first series for channel four was a work of genius, things got a bit tired after that but he's still better than 99% of the cuhnts on ITV.

 

Agree wih that. I had the misfortune to watch some of Al Murray's new sketch show on ITV last night, and while I think he is really funny when he does standup shows as The Pub Landlord (that doesn't include his happy hour or that dreadful sitcom he did on Sky a few years back), I found this program painfully unfunny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted

I suppose, that if you have a sub 80 IQ, then he is funny...but let's not kid ourselves, today's so called comedians, are on the whole, cr*p. They're not fit to be talked about in the same breath as Dawson, Morcambe and Wise, Hill, Worth, Wisdom, Hill,Howard etc......that's of course, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scudamore

Scudamore

Posted
Posted
I suppose, that if you have a sub 80 IQ, then he is funny...but let's not kid ourselves, today's so called comedians, are on the whole, cr*p. They're not fit to be talked about in the same breath as Dawson, Morcambe and Wise, Hill, Worth, Wisdom, Hill,Howard etc......that's of course, IMHO.

 

A little set in your ways perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
St Landrew

St Landrew

Posted
Posted
I suppose, that if you have a sub 80 IQ, then he is funny...but let's not kid ourselves, today's so called comedians, are on the whole, cr*p. They're not fit to be talked about in the same breath as Dawson, Morcambe and Wise, Hill, Worth, Wisdom, Howard etc......that's of course, IMHO.

 

Oh come on. I have the misfortune of being old enough to have witnessed these on the TV, when they were at their individual heights of popularity. They appealed to their own set of admirers, but they were no better, nor worse than today's comedians.

 

For example, anyone can tire of Dawson, with his working class woman's boob nudge, or his playing of a tune on the piano intentionally badly. Morecombe and Wise often fell into a set routine that was popular but predictable. Benny Hill's comedy was seaside humour for the TV, and was as outdated as a kiss-me-quick hat. Harry Worth...? Well, actually I'm struggling to think whether he was actually that funny, with The Goons and Tony Hanco ck, around as rivals. As kids though, I think we all did his little shop window trick, at least once. Norman Wisdom has never illicited more than a titter from me, as his humour harks back to the silent movie days, and they did it better then. Although in retrospect, his manic shouts for Mr Grimsdale produce a smile. Frankie Howard was possibly the best of these, as his stand-up humour never actually included many set jokes per se, and bridged a gap to modern day comedy.

 

Basically, once Spike Milligan went to TV with his Q series and There's A Lot Of It About, the comedic form changed almost completely, and actually inspired Monty Python and all that came afterwards. The old school comics became as dead as dinosaurs almost overnight. All of the emerging comedians, who differed from the traditional, owe the old Milligna [the well known typing error] a huge debt, really.

 

Perhaps you should have mentioned The Two Ronnies aswell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Durleyfos

Durleyfos

Posted
Posted
The cast of Blackadder, now there was a comedy line up.

 

Atkinson, Fry and Laurie, three comic legends. Robinson, McInerry and Richardson all had their moments in the series too.

 

With an honourable mention to Mayall for Lord Flasheart!

 

Total ****, just not funny. Only retards think he's funny.

 

That must make people who don't like him c0(ks then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hamster

hamster

Posted
Posted

SL mentioned Spike Milligan. I saw him in Folkestone and he had the audience crying with laughter.

All of a sudden he read a poem about abortion. He was weeping whilst reading it and before he had finished most of the audience were too.

It was most weird. FACT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyFartPants

JohnnyFartPants

Posted
Posted
I suppose, that if you have a sub 80 IQ, then he is funny...but let's not kid ourselves, today's so called comedians, are on the whole, cr*p. They're not fit to be talked about in the same breath as Dawson, Morcambe and Wise, Hill, Worth, Wisdom, Hill,Howard etc......that's of course, IMHO.

 

The man that time forgot.

 

Harry Hill has a great comedy delivery and is also a qualified doctor. He obviously has a higher IQ than 80 and he cracks funnies accordingly. Maybe you just don't get him because you are either way too clever or perhaps the other extreme. I know which direction I am thinking of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyFartPants

JohnnyFartPants

Posted
Posted
Or maybe he has his own opinion in that he doesn't find him funny and you just don't agree with someone elses opinion?? :confused:

 

Please tell me the rules, once and for all. Is it that when you make a comment, it is fact and can't be challenged but if others do it can be? Now the goalposts seem to have moved yet again. Now it seems if you agree with a poster those "facts" can't be challenged either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyFartPants

JohnnyFartPants

Posted
Posted
I have just looked out into the sports field and the goalposts are in the same place as they always have been....:confused: can you explain please or are you referring to different goalposts??

 

Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion. Moving the goalpost can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features.

 

Bella Donna claims that Sybil Antwhisper, her room-mate, is not sharing the housework equitably. Sybil tells Bella to go away and itemize and record who does what household tasks. If Bella can show that she does more housework than Sybil, then Sybil will mend her ways. A week passes and Bella shows Sybil clear evidence that Sybil does not "pull her weight" around the house. Sybil (the advocate) responds: "That's all very well, but I have more work and study commitments than you do – you should do more housework than me... it's the total work of all kinds that matters, not just housework."

 

In this example the implied agreement between Bella and Sybil at the outset was that the amount of housework done by both parties should be about the same. When Sybil was confronted by the evidence however, she quickly and unilaterally "changed the terms of the debate". She did this because the evidence was against her version of events and she was about to lose the argument on the issue as originally defined. By "moving the goalposts" Sybil is seeking to change the terms of the dispute to avoid a defeat on the original issue in contention.

 

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyFartPants

JohnnyFartPants

Posted
Posted
I think you'll find that I do actually have my own language skills.

 

It is called "Shane Language Services"

SLS provides high quality Business English training programmes to a variety of International companies, government organisations and private individuals. SLS is highly skilled in designing and tailoring to the needs of the clients. For the first time during 2007 this developed into a partnership by supplying in-house trainers for clients, who can provide them with a wide range of language services. These services included Inter Alia language courses, short brush up or focus lessons, level and needs checking and interactive writing programs which all take place at the clients’ site. In addition, we have language trainers who facilitate with in-house resume and document checking; interview techniques and oral examinations for recruitment and placement purposes.

 

http://www.saxoncourt.net/en/sls.php

 

 

By your own earlier correction, should that not then be Shane's Language Services?

 

Silly Shane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...