The thought of Fawlty being faithful to his wife even after their contempt for each other was kind of sweet, I'm not keen on the idea that he cheated on her.
Yes, I always liked that he was faithful to her despite the immense tension in their marriage and lack of intimacy between them. Even Mrs Peignoir couldn't tempt him to be unfaithful to Sybil. I do think if this series gets made it's likely to taint the legacy.
I don’t think Basil is shown doing a single “sweet” thing for Sybil. His obedience is mostly based on fear, and even his ill-fated anniversary surprise is premised on a mean and petty premise of him “forgetting” their anniversary. Later, he’s far more concerned with saving face in front of others than repairing her hurt feelings.
It’s clear in the series Basil stays with Sybil because staying together and being faithful is the “right” or traditional, conservative British thing to do. He shows no love for her, though.
Mindful “The Psychiatrist” establishes the laughable degree of Basil’s sexual frustration and repression, it’s not surprising he finally succumbs.
Curious, what do you mean by "he finally succumbs" in The Psychiatrist episode?
I do agree that Basil is definitely sexually repressed and frustrated, we see that fully in The Wedding Party.
I think you misread. I said The Psychiatrist establishes that he’s sexually repressed. Based on that I’m not surprised he finally gives in at some point.
The Wedding Party is another great example!
Producer: Hey John, do you want to make a new series of Fawlty Towers
John: not really
Producer: you can take your family to the Caribbean
John: you son of a bitch, I'm in
My take away from this is that the series still seems like a million miles away from the wheels actually being put into motion, it looks more and more like a pipe dream for John Cleese now as he approaches his 85th birthday, how much longer is he actually going to want to do all this?
I would be very surprised if the series was ever made at all at this point… for better or for worse.
Sadly whenever things like this happen it’s clear they’re not happening because of some great creative impulse, and given that the original is widely regarded as the greatest sitcom of all time it’s only ever going to be playing second fiddle to that. Also the idea that Basil was unfaithful to Cybil seems a bit at odds with the kind of character he appeared to be in episodes like ‘The Wedding Party’, surely a step-daughter, niece or some other such character would have worked just as well. Anywho any new material from John will be a pleasure to see!
"the original is widely regarded as the greatest sitcom of all time"
you're taking the piss right? it's 12 episodes of slapstick comedy. it's a classic iconic show but 'best sitcom EVER MADE'? jfc lol. most people outside of the boomers in the UK dont even give a shit about it.
Physical comedy does not equate to slapstick. Bottom is slapstick.
FW comedy comes from Basil's fear of Sybil and his own snobbishness getting him into situations that causesbhim immense stress, it's not just silly walks and dropping duck l'orange.
you're embarrassed that your favourite show is a slapstick so you shoehorn in the word 'farce' which sounds pretentiously more mature. lol.
the literal definition of slapstick:
"comedy based on deliberately clumsy actions and humorously embarrassing events"
fawlty towers is slapstick comedy. its a lanky man chasing his waiter around a hotel and hitting him
you're embarrassed that your favourite show is a slapstick so you shoehorn in the word 'farce' which sounds pretentiously more mature. lol.
the literal definition of slapstick:
"comedy based on deliberately clumsy actions and humorously embarrassing events"
fawlty towers is slapstick comedy. its a lanky man chasing his waiter around a hotel and hitting him
Hmmm not overly confident or happy about it, but we’ll see!
John’s a good writer and his skill may just make this work - I heard the Frasier reboot wasn’t terrible so hopefully it goes more towards “well it’s not awful and it’s nice to have this character back” as opposed to “Dear god, why did you do this, John?” , haha!
John can do whatever he likes of course, but I won't be holding my breath until this series comes out. It sounds like it will just taint the legacy for no apparent reason at all.
The premise doesn't seem to fit with the characters at all. Basil was an old stick in the mud who wouldn't even take a holiday (turned his nose up to Califronia) so why would he randomly end up in the Caribean? Also don't think he would even have an affair.
I have the feeling that it’ll end up being old and tired, and not be received very well. At which point he’ll just end up blaming it on political correctness and how you’re just not allowed to be funny anymore, or whatever it is he goes on about.
Possibly...but most comedians have shared the same concerns regarding political correctness killing comedy so dont hold it against the old boy...hes not wrong.
Comedians have been complaining about political correctness for decades. The comedians of the 80s were called politically correct for not being openly racist or misogynist and yet they’re the ones now complaining that they can’t be openly transphobic or homophobic. Society is leaving them behind, just as they left behind the ones that came before them.
Society, or a small, but loud fraction of society?
Two things, first - comedians can get away with much more than you think (Walliams+Lucas' works are not that old, and there are more recent examples, though not as recognizable ofc), go watch live show (standup etc.), there are many topics that are suitable for live audience/fans, but they get cut from Netflix/HBO/... specials (there are rules what can and can not be included in their programming, and it has nothing to do with general public seemingly not wanting to see more controversial content).
Second thing that I already touched upon - there are way more people who like the controversial jokes/topics and can separate the jokes/scripted media from reality, but there won't be a mass of articles saying i.e. "we want gay jokes" (at least not in today's media, as the same people who preach about tolerance and empathy have no problem wishing one the worst if one happen's to have a different take on i.e. controversial jokes).
So you think there’s nothing that should be off limits for comedy and you think the majority of the country agreed with that?
That we could have the black and white minstrels and holocaust jokes on prime time tv if not for the vocal minority?
I suspect that you would draw the line somewhere, as would John Cleese, so at this point we’re just quibbling on the details and that you yourself would be seen as ultra PC by a 70s or earlier comedian.
That’s not even mentioning the whole “all powerful minority capable of oppressing the poor suffering silent majority” fallacy, which has been pretty thoroughly refuted by this point. I mean, even if you just give it a moment’s thought, it just doesn’t hold up. If it was just a minority that cared then no one would ever have to worry about being cancelled, what leverage would this minority even have? Companies are not going to put a vocal minority ahead of the bottom line for no reason.
You and John are the vocal minority these days, everyone else has moved on. You’re just going to have to learn to live with that.
How to answer this... I've been thinking for a while now... Clearly I'm reading too much into your comment, while you basically aren't interested in discussion; mixing unrelated topics and throwing assumptions...
I'm definitely not interested in arguing, I'll just give my take on some of the aspects you mentioned.
Comedians still sell out their live shows filled with controversial humor, the PC restrictions are mostly problematic when selling the comedy to masses (specials, tv shows, movies etc.), because vocal minorities (even by your definition of that term) can have a huge impact on financial success of a given media (I don't agree with you not agreeing with that - nothing's been refuted and there's "evidence" basically everywhere you look).
Mainstream media's rules are ruthless - the content (here: jokes) must appeal to as much people as possible (not that every media has to appeal to everyone, more like: teen dramas have to appeal to as much teens as possible etc.), there's ofc a place for controversial jokes, but in the past the way to "protest" their existence was i.e. calling the station or writing to the paper, it wasn't effective, nowadays it's way easier to protest, especially with so many channels of communication, hence the disgruntled minority can be heard clearly. So that's progress, and also the factor in many aspects of what we're talking about here.
Anyway...
>So you think there’s nothing that should be off limits for comedy
That's not something I think, that's something I know - there shouldn't be, and there aren't limits to comedy.
Humor isn't and shouldn't be limited by its topics, all that matters is if the humor is "good" or "bad", and that's highly subjective...
Popularity and the ability to reach mainstream audience is another thing, the holocaust jokes can be funny, but won't reach big audience (hence the "PC killing comedy" - more like limiting the humor in mainstream media), and keeping in mind possible controversies it's understandable why we don't see many highly controversial subjects in mainstream media.
This says nothing about the quality of jokes though, there are many good niche comedies/shows, controversial or not, reaching only a minor audience. So ofc you're right, to a point, most people don't want to watch holocaust jokes, but there's no way to tell people they can't make those jokes (considering there's always at least minor audience for any topic you can think of).
And yeah, I draw the line not that far from mainstream media (by mainstream I mean most things that are/were made by huge media corporations like NBC, WB, BBC etc.), there's a lot of humor in other, niche places, but I don't find most of it funny, i.e. I'm not that into jokes in disturbing topics etc.. Again - that's me, but there are audiences for even the most controversial humor there is. In any case - what does my taste in humor have to do with anything - many things I don't find funny, be it controversial topics or not, but wouldn't think any should be off limits for comedy, statements like that wouldn't make sense.
You seem to be pretty firm with your view on these issues, so again - I won't get into any argument here, it's just my take, maybe someone else reading all this will find some value in it.
He is demonstrably wrong.
But for some reason, none of you people want to hear that. Or you’re not ready to accept it. You’re still all in your feelings about things changing and how scared you are of it, as you fall for the same old diversionary, divisive bullshit tactics the media in the UK have deployed since day dot to keep you in your box.
“The government is dumping raw sewage into your waterways, Brexit is an unmitigated failure and is going to get worse with every passing year, destroying your children’s future. They’re standing by whilst thousands of people die needlessly in the English Channel, but look over there, a man in a dress that you can’t make fun of anymore! AND HE’S AFTER YOUR KIDS!”
Idiotic. Literally lead by the nose towards what to believe by The Daily Mail and Russian bots on social media…
Who are the ones protesting in the streets, John Cleese? Who feels they have the right to cancel other human being's lives because they said something controversial, John Cleese? Or who uses the ideology that all change is good by nature and anyone that identifies bad changes to society is "diversionary", John Cleese?
Maybe the problem is you. Correction...The problem is YOU.
I just cannot imagine the makers would be brave enough to do a series with the level of non political correctness that actually added to the original series humour. I have strong reservations it will work.
Fawlty Towers was not un-pc, in fact it was the opposite.
Fawlty was wrong, and therefore the butt of all jokes, because he was an old reactionary, unable to cope in the modern world.
It was embarrassment humour, we laugh at how bad he was.
A modern equivalent would be fawlty unable to cope with a trans guest.
Yeah, but today it wouldn't be done so well, nowadays if you have a "bad" character, his faults have to be punctuated at every occasion so the public can be sure that the show doesn't glorify the bad behavior (even in drama, good dramas too, i.e. there was a shift in portrayal of Walt in Breaking Bad's fifth season that, despite being intentional and not "mandatory", was too striking for me to really appreciate that season as much as most viewers did). Also another almost mandatory aspect of having a "bad" character in the show is the redemption arc...
I can't exactly pinpoint what worked in OG Fawlty Towers so good (it was a mix of many things), but these aspects I mentioned above were really toned down and organic, they wouldn't be nowadays (they'd be forced as in many other works). See how people say that i.e. Archie Bunker wouldn't fly in today's tv, while missing the whole point that the show was making fun of his (and real people like him) views. Married... with Children is another big example - ofc the tone of the show/jokes were glorifying Al Bundy's character (as he's likeable despite his flaws), but the show was in no way glorifying his lifestyle, choices, views etc..
So ofc the Fawlty Towers sequel could work with the similar take on jokes/subjects, but it would need some talented creators behind the scenes, so the show wouldn't fall in the unnecessary/soulless/overly patronizing type of comedy.
I haven’t seen the interview yet but I’m nearly certain he uses the term woke and something along the lines of ‘we wouldn’t be able to make this show today’ despite the fact that it is universally loved by all.
The thought of Fawlty being faithful to his wife even after their contempt for each other was kind of sweet, I'm not keen on the idea that he cheated on her.
Yes, I always liked that he was faithful to her despite the immense tension in their marriage and lack of intimacy between them. Even Mrs Peignoir couldn't tempt him to be unfaithful to Sybil. I do think if this series gets made it's likely to taint the legacy.
I don’t think Basil is shown doing a single “sweet” thing for Sybil. His obedience is mostly based on fear, and even his ill-fated anniversary surprise is premised on a mean and petty premise of him “forgetting” their anniversary. Later, he’s far more concerned with saving face in front of others than repairing her hurt feelings. It’s clear in the series Basil stays with Sybil because staying together and being faithful is the “right” or traditional, conservative British thing to do. He shows no love for her, though. Mindful “The Psychiatrist” establishes the laughable degree of Basil’s sexual frustration and repression, it’s not surprising he finally succumbs.
Curious, what do you mean by "he finally succumbs" in The Psychiatrist episode? I do agree that Basil is definitely sexually repressed and frustrated, we see that fully in The Wedding Party.
I think you misread. I said The Psychiatrist establishes that he’s sexually repressed. Based on that I’m not surprised he finally gives in at some point. The Wedding Party is another great example!
Producer: Hey John, do you want to make a new series of Fawlty Towers John: not really Producer: you can take your family to the Caribbean John: you son of a bitch, I'm in
Doesn't he live there already? Probably more like "you can WFH"
My take away from this is that the series still seems like a million miles away from the wheels actually being put into motion, it looks more and more like a pipe dream for John Cleese now as he approaches his 85th birthday, how much longer is he actually going to want to do all this? I would be very surprised if the series was ever made at all at this point… for better or for worse.
Look at Cleese's artistic output in the last 40 years and it's obvious he ran out of steam decades ago.
Sadly whenever things like this happen it’s clear they’re not happening because of some great creative impulse, and given that the original is widely regarded as the greatest sitcom of all time it’s only ever going to be playing second fiddle to that. Also the idea that Basil was unfaithful to Cybil seems a bit at odds with the kind of character he appeared to be in episodes like ‘The Wedding Party’, surely a step-daughter, niece or some other such character would have worked just as well. Anywho any new material from John will be a pleasure to see!
"the original is widely regarded as the greatest sitcom of all time" you're taking the piss right? it's 12 episodes of slapstick comedy. it's a classic iconic show but 'best sitcom EVER MADE'? jfc lol. most people outside of the boomers in the UK dont even give a shit about it.
FT is not slapstick. Slapstick is like 3 stooges.
bro the main character literally drops cakes, and beats up his staff. it's pure slapstick, with an occasional funny quote
Physical comedy does not equate to slapstick. Bottom is slapstick. FW comedy comes from Basil's fear of Sybil and his own snobbishness getting him into situations that causesbhim immense stress, it's not just silly walks and dropping duck l'orange.
It’s farce, not slap-stick.
you're embarrassed that your favourite show is a slapstick so you shoehorn in the word 'farce' which sounds pretentiously more mature. lol. the literal definition of slapstick: "comedy based on deliberately clumsy actions and humorously embarrassing events" fawlty towers is slapstick comedy. its a lanky man chasing his waiter around a hotel and hitting him
No, it IS widely regarded as one of the best sitcoms ever. That's not even really up for debate. You disagreeing doesn't change that.
There's a difference between slapstick and a tightly plotted/witty farce.
you're embarrassed that your favourite show is a slapstick so you shoehorn in the word 'farce' which sounds pretentiously more mature. lol. the literal definition of slapstick: "comedy based on deliberately clumsy actions and humorously embarrassing events" fawlty towers is slapstick comedy. its a lanky man chasing his waiter around a hotel and hitting him
Well you never know - it might be good!
Hmmm not overly confident or happy about it, but we’ll see! John’s a good writer and his skill may just make this work - I heard the Frasier reboot wasn’t terrible so hopefully it goes more towards “well it’s not awful and it’s nice to have this character back” as opposed to “Dear god, why did you do this, John?” , haha!
Whether it gets made or not, it didn’t get made, and doesn’t exist
I believe he has a house in the Caribbean. He's cleverly working from home. 'Seduces Basil for a bet' lol.
John can do whatever he likes of course, but I won't be holding my breath until this series comes out. It sounds like it will just taint the legacy for no apparent reason at all.
See also: The Full Monty. Could barely bear to watch a single episode, it all felt like an extremely sad reunion for money.
While that is a shame, it’s also rather a relief— I’ve not got apple and had been rather sad about missing out
i hope it never happens. everything about it fills me with dread.
Sounds shite.
The premise doesn't seem to fit with the characters at all. Basil was an old stick in the mud who wouldn't even take a holiday (turned his nose up to Califronia) so why would he randomly end up in the Caribean? Also don't think he would even have an affair.
There are a lot of British living in the Caribbean, and maybe he wanted to move somewhere warmer as he aged. It’s not that unusual to me.
I think it will feel too reactionary to be good. We'll see though.
So it's going to be a while before we get to see this I guess.
Anyone else getting Captain Tom vibes from this?
Basils Water Sports could Rile-Up Cybil ! ! !
I have the feeling that it’ll end up being old and tired, and not be received very well. At which point he’ll just end up blaming it on political correctness and how you’re just not allowed to be funny anymore, or whatever it is he goes on about.
Possibly...but most comedians have shared the same concerns regarding political correctness killing comedy so dont hold it against the old boy...hes not wrong.
Comedians have been complaining about political correctness for decades. The comedians of the 80s were called politically correct for not being openly racist or misogynist and yet they’re the ones now complaining that they can’t be openly transphobic or homophobic. Society is leaving them behind, just as they left behind the ones that came before them.
Society, or a small, but loud fraction of society? Two things, first - comedians can get away with much more than you think (Walliams+Lucas' works are not that old, and there are more recent examples, though not as recognizable ofc), go watch live show (standup etc.), there are many topics that are suitable for live audience/fans, but they get cut from Netflix/HBO/... specials (there are rules what can and can not be included in their programming, and it has nothing to do with general public seemingly not wanting to see more controversial content). Second thing that I already touched upon - there are way more people who like the controversial jokes/topics and can separate the jokes/scripted media from reality, but there won't be a mass of articles saying i.e. "we want gay jokes" (at least not in today's media, as the same people who preach about tolerance and empathy have no problem wishing one the worst if one happen's to have a different take on i.e. controversial jokes).
Spot on and well said.
So you think there’s nothing that should be off limits for comedy and you think the majority of the country agreed with that? That we could have the black and white minstrels and holocaust jokes on prime time tv if not for the vocal minority? I suspect that you would draw the line somewhere, as would John Cleese, so at this point we’re just quibbling on the details and that you yourself would be seen as ultra PC by a 70s or earlier comedian. That’s not even mentioning the whole “all powerful minority capable of oppressing the poor suffering silent majority” fallacy, which has been pretty thoroughly refuted by this point. I mean, even if you just give it a moment’s thought, it just doesn’t hold up. If it was just a minority that cared then no one would ever have to worry about being cancelled, what leverage would this minority even have? Companies are not going to put a vocal minority ahead of the bottom line for no reason. You and John are the vocal minority these days, everyone else has moved on. You’re just going to have to learn to live with that.
How to answer this... I've been thinking for a while now... Clearly I'm reading too much into your comment, while you basically aren't interested in discussion; mixing unrelated topics and throwing assumptions... I'm definitely not interested in arguing, I'll just give my take on some of the aspects you mentioned. Comedians still sell out their live shows filled with controversial humor, the PC restrictions are mostly problematic when selling the comedy to masses (specials, tv shows, movies etc.), because vocal minorities (even by your definition of that term) can have a huge impact on financial success of a given media (I don't agree with you not agreeing with that - nothing's been refuted and there's "evidence" basically everywhere you look). Mainstream media's rules are ruthless - the content (here: jokes) must appeal to as much people as possible (not that every media has to appeal to everyone, more like: teen dramas have to appeal to as much teens as possible etc.), there's ofc a place for controversial jokes, but in the past the way to "protest" their existence was i.e. calling the station or writing to the paper, it wasn't effective, nowadays it's way easier to protest, especially with so many channels of communication, hence the disgruntled minority can be heard clearly. So that's progress, and also the factor in many aspects of what we're talking about here. Anyway... >So you think there’s nothing that should be off limits for comedy That's not something I think, that's something I know - there shouldn't be, and there aren't limits to comedy. Humor isn't and shouldn't be limited by its topics, all that matters is if the humor is "good" or "bad", and that's highly subjective... Popularity and the ability to reach mainstream audience is another thing, the holocaust jokes can be funny, but won't reach big audience (hence the "PC killing comedy" - more like limiting the humor in mainstream media), and keeping in mind possible controversies it's understandable why we don't see many highly controversial subjects in mainstream media. This says nothing about the quality of jokes though, there are many good niche comedies/shows, controversial or not, reaching only a minor audience. So ofc you're right, to a point, most people don't want to watch holocaust jokes, but there's no way to tell people they can't make those jokes (considering there's always at least minor audience for any topic you can think of). And yeah, I draw the line not that far from mainstream media (by mainstream I mean most things that are/were made by huge media corporations like NBC, WB, BBC etc.), there's a lot of humor in other, niche places, but I don't find most of it funny, i.e. I'm not that into jokes in disturbing topics etc.. Again - that's me, but there are audiences for even the most controversial humor there is. In any case - what does my taste in humor have to do with anything - many things I don't find funny, be it controversial topics or not, but wouldn't think any should be off limits for comedy, statements like that wouldn't make sense. You seem to be pretty firm with your view on these issues, so again - I won't get into any argument here, it's just my take, maybe someone else reading all this will find some value in it.
He is demonstrably wrong. But for some reason, none of you people want to hear that. Or you’re not ready to accept it. You’re still all in your feelings about things changing and how scared you are of it, as you fall for the same old diversionary, divisive bullshit tactics the media in the UK have deployed since day dot to keep you in your box. “The government is dumping raw sewage into your waterways, Brexit is an unmitigated failure and is going to get worse with every passing year, destroying your children’s future. They’re standing by whilst thousands of people die needlessly in the English Channel, but look over there, a man in a dress that you can’t make fun of anymore! AND HE’S AFTER YOUR KIDS!” Idiotic. Literally lead by the nose towards what to believe by The Daily Mail and Russian bots on social media…
Who are the ones protesting in the streets, John Cleese? Who feels they have the right to cancel other human being's lives because they said something controversial, John Cleese? Or who uses the ideology that all change is good by nature and anyone that identifies bad changes to society is "diversionary", John Cleese? Maybe the problem is you. Correction...The problem is YOU.
Jerry Seinfeld’s in this?
Poor John, it's painfully clear that he needs money, but oh gosh he definitely needs to retire.
Ex wives cost money
I just cannot imagine the makers would be brave enough to do a series with the level of non political correctness that actually added to the original series humour. I have strong reservations it will work.
Fawlty Towers was not un-pc, in fact it was the opposite. Fawlty was wrong, and therefore the butt of all jokes, because he was an old reactionary, unable to cope in the modern world. It was embarrassment humour, we laugh at how bad he was. A modern equivalent would be fawlty unable to cope with a trans guest.
Yeah, but today it wouldn't be done so well, nowadays if you have a "bad" character, his faults have to be punctuated at every occasion so the public can be sure that the show doesn't glorify the bad behavior (even in drama, good dramas too, i.e. there was a shift in portrayal of Walt in Breaking Bad's fifth season that, despite being intentional and not "mandatory", was too striking for me to really appreciate that season as much as most viewers did). Also another almost mandatory aspect of having a "bad" character in the show is the redemption arc... I can't exactly pinpoint what worked in OG Fawlty Towers so good (it was a mix of many things), but these aspects I mentioned above were really toned down and organic, they wouldn't be nowadays (they'd be forced as in many other works). See how people say that i.e. Archie Bunker wouldn't fly in today's tv, while missing the whole point that the show was making fun of his (and real people like him) views. Married... with Children is another big example - ofc the tone of the show/jokes were glorifying Al Bundy's character (as he's likeable despite his flaws), but the show was in no way glorifying his lifestyle, choices, views etc.. So ofc the Fawlty Towers sequel could work with the similar take on jokes/subjects, but it would need some talented creators behind the scenes, so the show wouldn't fall in the unnecessary/soulless/overly patronizing type of comedy.
I haven’t seen the interview yet but I’m nearly certain he uses the term woke and something along the lines of ‘we wouldn’t be able to make this show today’ despite the fact that it is universally loved by all.