Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Col. Dash wrote:
Ahtman that really depends on the location of the show.

If only I had stated something that pointed out that it wasn't always true, like "generally speaking".

With two seconds of typing I found a chart showing the estimated cost of living versus the estimated income.

Frasier's apartment being nearly $10k month is what really hurts me.

Hollywood prefers "beautiful people".

In the post-Friends era, I guess the next huge hit comedy show was The Office. Michael Scott is absolutely a loser. The whole premise of the show is that his personal life is so utterly empty that he escapes from it by going to work. Now the original British version is more bleak, granted. But the idea of a protagonist who is a failure, and totally unconscious about it, was extremely appealing to a vast number of Americans. I guess the trick is that Michael himself holds that quintessentially American aspirational attitude: he wants to be Agent Michael Skarn, he wants to be the World's Best Boss, in his own words:




I think Brits often feel we are not as self-aware as they are and that we have no sense of irony. We have some sense of irony and we have some self-awareness. But, as an American, I would say we do not have them in crippling amounts.



The American attitude towards the British is best summed up by Arrested Development, when Michael does not realize Rita is mentally handicapped because of her British accent.

 Scrabb wrote:
I'm sure there's something going on but I had two thoughts:

1. As an american tv consumer, Parks and Recreation doesn't strike me as a particularly good example, unless you mean how Leslie rises up through the ranks in later seasons.

Most of the cast whose homes we see have average houses, except (to my memory) Ron (who is a recluse and has more than one cabin), Leslie (whose house could have been featured in an episode of hoarders until one particular episode), Donna (whose house I don't think we ever see. But her cousin's place is a multi-million extravaganza) and Andy, who spent a season living in a dirt pit.


2. Large parts of america can get housing for much cheaper than most any place in Europe. You can move from a ten room house to a closet moving from Texas to New York. Do our large house look more impressive to UK audiences than the same group in the US?

when it comes to housing costs it is all about location, my house costs a whole lot less then a parking space in say New York city?

Also, didn't we adopt Shameless with William H. Macy as Frank Gallagher?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I think the OP's comparison is generally accurate, but it wasn't always the case. The TV I grew up with had a balance of shows that depicted wealth and poverty. In the 70's and 80's we had shows like All in the Family, Sanford & Son and Roseanne which depicted more middle class, or really, lower-middle class families. A lot of the shows' comedy situations came from the characters' poverty, so it was a constant theme on those programs. That isn't to say there weren't shows on during that period where wealthy characters were the focus. The Cosby show is a great example of a family living well in a large house with nice furnishing and which the parents had respectable careers (doctor and lawyer). Silver Spoons and Different Strokes are other examples.

It might be worth mentioning that Sanford & Son was inspired by the British Steptoe & Son....

The Auld Grump

Col. Dash wrote:
Would Penny be able to afford that apartment as a struggling actress/waitress? No, not even in the cheap south I think unless she worked something out with the landlord. I think though that Leonard and Sheldon with their jobs don't even need to be roommates with their jobs for the apartment across the hall.

IIRC, active researching scientists don't actually make all that much money, or at least, not as much as many seem to think. I agree with you that there's no way Penny can actually afford that apartment on her own as just a waitress (maybe she had done some "acting" on the side that never made it into the story?)

IMO, Leonard and Sheldon's apartment makes sense to me because, while they may not be able to afford the place on their own, it isn't by much. And because they live together, we the audience can see their hobbies better because it's clear that's where much of their money goes (aside from daily meals out)

I'm not a consistent follower of The Big Bang, and I had formed the idea that the flats that most of them live in with the broken lift are actually university provided student housing of some kind.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm not a consistent follower of The Big Bang, and I had formed the idea that the flats that most of them live in with the broken lift are actually university provided student housing of some kind.

No. They're the only people from the University that live there that I've ever seen mentioned on the show. Penny, who lives across from them, doesn't even attend the University.

There's numerous references however that they don't make much money (Bernadette telling Howard he earns 'peanuts', Raj only getting a drone because his 'richie rich' parents give him an allowance to supplement his wage, etc). Though Sheldon also hoards large quantities of cash in random places around the apartment so their income is more variable to suit the episodes storyline.

It's kind of like Eastenders, they worked out that each house in the square is worth well over one million pounds a piece, no one in that show gets anywhere near that kind of money.

..do they still all go to the launderette to do their laundry ...

One assumes the nigh on apocalyptic murder/death rate might influence the housing market though.

IIRC 'enders and Hollyoaks have a murder rate worse than Hoduras, Mexico etc etc

Albert Square has a death rate higher than being a bomb disposal expert.

I think four or five people are killed each year.

Wasnt Rosanne actually applauded for being "real" in america?
Barring the last season ofcourse. Or is that not a comedy.
Or does it change depending on the era? Cause All in the Family and The Jeffersens are certainly not aspirational

I've found that the attempts by the US to try and build off the success of British comedies falls fairly flat. Inbetweeners is a pretty good example. The US version of that was terrible!

Definitely agree with the Fry video. Hits it on the head beautifully.

Not quite worth it's own thread but more or less fits in here :


http://www.businessinsider.com.au/ben-elton-knew-nothing-about-the-young-ones-creepy-fifth-housemate-2016-6

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I've found that the attempts by the US to try and build off the success of British comedies falls fairly flat. Inbetweeners is a pretty good example. The US version of that was terrible!

Definitely agree with the Fry video. Hits it on the head beautifully.

Wasn't that mostly because they removed all the smut from the British version and made it all squeaky clean?


I've never actually seen the young ones, but I've heard many things about it. That's pretty cool though.

The Young Ones is majestic hoppo, think Monty Python via the Sex Pistols(of their day) and Three Stooges.

Yeah, I don't know what to think of this, really. - After all, when they started in the UK, "The Middle" and "Modern Family" were shown during the same hour slot, despite being very different settings and styles.

Of course, my favourite comedy is Still Game (which you probably haven't seen much of, unless you're Scottish), which doesn't quite fit any of the strands mentioned.

It's not 'aspirational,' it's not really about 'failures' - though, there is some black humour in there at times, no surprise there really, considering its about a group of pensioners. It's kind of one of those 'slice of life' comedies. - For example, my favourite scene in the series is an argument between the two characters about who ate the last Tunnocks Teacake.

Still Game is great. It isn't shown in the south but you can get it on YouTube.

It's not about "failures" except to the point that all these pensioners are still having the kind of petty interpersonal nebbing they've probably been getting and giving all their lives.

 reds8n wrote:
Not quite worth it's own thread but more or less fits in here :


http://www.businessinsider.com.au/ben-elton-knew-nothing-about-the-young-ones-creepy-fifth-housemate-2016-6

Fascinating. The Young Ones was ahead of it's time.

I absolutely loved The Young Ones. I was a student at the time, living in a crappy condemned building so it rang a bit of a chord, not that I ever had any wonderful adventures.

That was a great article.

Loved the Young Ones, another great example of British Brevity, but they knew when to quit and not milk it for all it was worth.

Still one of the best ways to end a show, ever!

It has just occurred to me to pose the question, where do the Carry On films fit into this theory of British and American comedy?

One difference I notice between modern US American and British comedy shows is that on American TV, the characters tend to be annoyed by one another, but underneath that, they really like or even love each other. While on many British sitcoms I've seen, the characters seem to truly despise each other.

Probably most easy comparison to make the point is the US vs. UK versions of the Office. In the US, the Everyman character gets annoyed by his boss's antics, but actually likes and respects the guy. In the UK version, the Everyman just despises his boss.

The Xmas specail of the BBC version of The Office showed that David could be funny, effective and liked.

The "documentary" just took hundreds of hours of footage and edited it to only show his failed jokes and times when people were angry or otherwise negatively disposed towards him.

I always thought that was the point of the show, that if we all had cameras following our every move, skillful edits could paint anyone of us a monster.

Good points.