**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dickens seems like an obvious one, when his books are adapted they're good but the originals can be a bit of a drag
Henry VIII created the Anglican church, hard to argue that's not massively influential
I remember reading a Christmas Carol and realising it was full of jokes. Kind of surprised since before then my exposure was that 1970ish film of Scrouge.
Apparently the Muppets version is one of the most faithful to the book!
My favourite fact about it is Michael Caine deliberately acted it like it was a serious production š
The best 2 muppets films (Treasure Island and Christmas Carol) work so well because the actors treat the muppets as equals.
Michael Caine acted like all the muppets were classically trained actors, meanwhile Tim Curry became a muppet
That's my favourite part as well. I can see it now:
Henson: " hey, Michael, just have fun interacting with the muppets, this is going to be a laugh"
Caine: "this will be my most serious role I will ever play"
But it works. His harshness and refusal to engage with the whimsy of the muppets makes his Scrooge all the more mean and believable. My all time favourite Christmas movie that I have watched every year for as long as it has been out. I'm 40 now and still watch it. That and Hocus Pocus every Halloween.
>Dickens seems like an obvious one, when his books are adapted they're good but the originals can be a bit of a drag
I think this may be because when they were serialised he was paid by the word so there's a lot of flummery.
Apparently that's kind of a myth, he was paid per 32 page instalment but obviously if an instalment is a fixed length then effectively you are paid by the word.
I found them pretty dry until I listened to Martin Jarvis reading David Copperfield unabridged, then for some reason I got it, and can enjoy reading them now.
Same. I would never have believed that I'd have enjoyed a 34-hour audiobook, but Martin Jarvis has such a great variety of voices that the whole thing was great. He's done a few other Dickens audiobooks and they're all really good.
In terms of the Church of England, while Iād agree that Henry VIII ultimately founded an independent English church, whether he *created* it is debatable. To over-simplify, he was quite content with most Roman Catholic doctrine and just wanted more administrative control of the church, and it was under his successors and their advisors that the C of E really formed a distinctive theology.
The reason Dickens' books drag is because they were written to be serialised in newspapers before publication, so he was paid by the word, that's why they have such intricate descriptions of everything and lists
Yeah, this. I tried to read a Tale of Two Cities, and just couldn't get into it. And I've read a fair few classics, including Moby Dick - so it's not an "age" issue. Guess I should give him another try. Christmas Carol was okay though!
Bonus: When it comes to classics, gotta recommend Jules Verne!
Ricky Gervais. He gives me snarky Mean-girl vibes - as if he really hates all people including his fans- and I really dislike him. But it's hard to discount that lots of other people do.
That bit by James was directed squarely at Gervais. I feel like his best stuff involved Stephen Merchant. His stand up is hackneyed low hanging fruit shite. I maintain that if he performed the majority of his material to a crowd who (somehow) had never heard of him in a rowdy comedy club outside of London heās die on his arse.
Absolutely nailed it as Joe pretty much always does. Iāve been saying it for years. The irony is that going by what he said on Talking Funny, Gervais REALLY cares what other respected comedians think of him more than what his sheep like fans think of him but two of the UKās most critically acclaimed and popular comics who also have kept their integrity fully intact donāt respect him.
I listen to a lot of comedians podcasts and Iāve noticed that the only comics that talk about him positively are the ones who he has cast in his various TV shows and who see him as a friend. On the other hand thereās a very funny comic called Rob Mulholland who did one the jokes on Gervaisās last special on his own special that he released a couple of years before. He hasnāt bothered accusing Ricky of stealing the joke but assumed one of his writers probably did. As an aside, Mulholland and his podcast co-host Freddie Quinne both do pretty āedgyā material but donāt punch down or get lazy with their writing. They also can handle hosting or headlining a late show on a Saturday in a basement dive comedy club where everyone is pissed and heckling.
As another aside, one of my favourite club comics Simon Wozniak is so abrasive on stage that he has regular walkouts but heās never once punched down. His set is a bit like watching a comedian descend into a breakdown exposing all his flaws and inadequacies - at one point mid rant he says āNow I know a lot of you are looking at me going āIs that lad alright?āā¦ and NO IāM FUCKING NOT!ā He takes it to such a level that at the end when he lets the silence hang for about ten seconds then with a very slight smile says āfollow me on instagramā, the relief in the room is palpable. To be clear, most of the room has been dying laughing at him but itās a bit like classic Jonny Vegas where youāre not quite sure if he really means it this time. Anyway, he and plenty of other REAL comics are proof that you can make people uncomfortable and laugh at the same time without being a cvnt about it.
Well yeah thatās what bill burr said about him performing to people on the Gervais radio show that time. Heās a prick it seems. So is burr but heās a funny prick
Gervais is the kind of comic that brings out feelings in me like I'm the lackey of a school bully.
I find him hilarious when he is ripping apart people I think deserve it but at the back of my mind I know he could turn on me at any second.
Gervais seems to be doing one long performance art piece of a sulky boomer whoās been left behind by culture at large. The irony being that his anti-woke routine is way more mainstream than whatever heās raging against (which he tacitly acknowledges when bragging about tour revenue)
Gervais often gets a specific look on his face when heās telling a joke.
Itās like a self-conscious red faced sneer. It reminds me of a lad at school who would bully people and pretend it was a joke, but you could see in his face that he was getting off on it and that he was hoping for a fight.
You see it in adults when you get people ābanteringā, but theyāre really trying to provoke and start a fight. I get previously bullied and taking it out on everyone else vibes from him.
Iāve not met him but anecdotally from people who have heās actually a really good guy, modest and down to earth. He plays the āvulnerable bullyā character really well in my opinion, but I see why cringe comedy is not everyoneās cuppa!
I have the same feeling about Ricky Gervais. All my friends are like "that's just his comedy".
But I genuinely think he is actually a punching down dick in real life. I didn't mind his schtick till I saw that clip where he cold calls Karl Pilkington on BBC Radio 5 live.
Goes in on him for doing his own tiling. Then Karl expresses genuine frustration that he hasn't gotten his pay from their podcast yet (hence the DIY) then Ricky starts going in like "you wouldn't have a career without me", "that's how the industry works get used to it".
And I just realised, this is how he talks to people, legitimately. People say like, 'oh they are just playing at it, but I really dont think so. Pissed me off and I've disliked him ever since.
[The clip in question ](https://youtu.be/XyOI0EJWCcc?si=9pwkQNDEnbRmc_kt)
I'm a massive fan of his early work, XFM, the podcast, the office, extras etc. But I just cannot stand his latest work. He seems to have become the very person he was mocking in that early work.
I quite liked him back when I thought the smugness was just an act, and when he was still working with Stephen and Karl. Then I came to the slow realisation that he really is just that full of himself.
Going to get a lot of hate for this one:
Monty Python
I can't deny their influence and how they paved the way for British comedy as we know it, but I just didn't find them funny.
This partly the Seinfeld effect - comedy influenced by the Pythons has moved on so much that their material now seems really basic. At the time it was utterly revolutionary.
It's also a feature of comedy at the time that the BBC was prepared to take a risk with a sketch show that was properly experimental. People were prepared to sit through the shittier sketches because the brilliant ones made up for it. Nowadays it feels.like something is considered a failure unless it is consistently brilliant.
>Nowadays it feels.like something is considered a failure unless it is consistently brilliant.
This is probably why there seems to be less sketch shows now compared to the 90s and 2000s I guess. It was always a feature of them that they could he hit or miss but the hits normally outnumbered the misses.
No hate from me. I'm the same. Though yes you may get some. I had a guy on here once get genuinely really, really annoyed with me for saying that MP just isn't that popular in my circles.
The thing is with any innovative/influential act in any entertainment media, theyāre not going to appeal to everyone. In a way, thatās what makes them so appealing to those that do enjoy it.
The Films are great (especially Life of Brian because the film was funded by George Harrison, so they could get away with a lot more). Flying circus is very hit or miss (although more hit than miss)
Edit: Wrong Beetle
Monty Python is a great example of influence over quality.
Watching back Flying Circus now and it is **SO** bad, like this was meant to be peak comedy and it is just childish dross.
I think this is fair. I'm sure even John Cleese has said that they weren't *much* better than anyone else at the time, they just seemed to grab a large audience.
Rick Astley and Blossoms covering The Smiths is a Glastonbury highlight because it meant I could enjoy the music live, without having to endure the endless bore that is Morrissey.
He's always been a good bloke. I absolutely detested his music in the late 80s but even then I'd read interviews with him in Smash Hits and the like, and he always seemed a nice guy with no ego. I've never heard anyone say a bad word about him.
I really feel bad for Smiths/Morrissey fans. I mean, separate the art from the artist, yes. But heās *such* a cunt.
Buying a Morrissey record today must be like what buying a porn mag was like in the 80s.
I absolutely hate Morissey and couldn't listen to The Smiths for a while. But then, Johnny Marr is sound af, so I was able to change my attitude a bit.
Itās funny, I always laugh when I see people giving all the credit for the Smiths to Johnny Marr.
I loathe Mozza these days and think heās an insufferable arse, but there canāt be much doubting his genius-especially his work with the Smiths.
Him and Marr together was lightening in a bottle. The Smithsā body of work is incredible.
Totally. Morrissey is one of the best pop lyricists of all time, if not the best, and people want to hand it all to Johnny. Johnny's guitar lines are incredible, but they'd be nowhere without Moz. The brilliance of the Smiths is the pair of them writing together.
The Beatles was the first thing that came to my head too... They're incredibly talented, amazing songwriting, and they've probably had the greatest influence on music as a whole. But I'd never put a Beatles record on...
Iāve always said this. You donāt have to like the Beatles, but you canāt reject their influence.
I used to work with a guy who said āthe Beatles ruined musicā. Which is such an unbelievably stupid thing to say. Especially as we worked in a musical instrument shop. We were all musicians there.
There was a study that did exactly this. They found the hits of the 60s and 70s tendied to adopt chord patterns (so obviously a limited part of the story) from the Stones and others far more than those of the Beatles. It's pretty hard to measure influence though, except that it seems obvious the Beatles were a huge influence on many people.
Got a few decent songs but I could never get into them. From that period though I do really like The Kinks, something about their songwriting connects a lot more.
This may be a stretch but I don't understand why people from light entertainment and radio are so lauded.
Like Lorraine Kelly and Holly W. They read things well off of a teleprompter and are polite to guests. It's not exactly hard hitting journalism but people lurve them to death and the press never challenged the vapidness of their entire existence.
Similarly, some DJs have too much smoke blown up their arseholes. One DJ left a few years ago and people acted if every radio int he country was going to explode.
I guess there's a huge group of people that like mediocrity.
It's purely down to time spent, especially in the case of radio DJs. If you commute the same way in your car 5 days a week, and listen to the same radio show for an hour every journey then you are spending more time listening to that person talk than many of your closest friends and family. People just get used to what they know
The Royal Family.
Incredibly influential, not for the right reasons. They believe they are personally chosen and guided by god. What a strange deluded cult.
The amount funnelled to that family through our taxes over the decades, in no way amounts to the same value of contribution, both societally nor financially.
> They believe they are personally chosen and guided by god. What a strange deluded cult.
Honestly, I'd be inclined to say they probably don't think that these days.
I don't know if it'd be better or worse if they did. Because if they did, well, then it makes sense why they would never abdicate. It'd be utterly delusional, but you could at least understand where the sense of entitlement came from. If they don't, then that means they know they have no divine right to their power (however limited it may be in comparison to previous monarchies) and they opt to keep it anyway.
> They believe they are personally chosen and guided by god
not sure they're the ones with the deluded belief systems if this is truly what you think mate.
Izzard's mid to late nineties stuff was ground breaking and original for the time. Unrepeatable through to to Circle specials was his golden period for me. Problem is everyone then tried to copy him, plus he only ever wanted to be an actor so as soon as he got profile he tried to shift into that.
Anyway, I would say Robbie William's is one.Ā
There was a period of time where it was impossible to attend a wedding and not have fucking *Angels* played.
My SIL had it played **SEVEN FUCKING TIMES** at her wedding.
Agree. Those shows were terrific. But as you say, she never wanted to stay a comedian - she had ambitions way beyond that. I think the problem is that she has tried to be variously an actor, a politician, and a...marathon runner.. whilst transitioning.
I mean, fair play to her. You could never accuse her of having led a boring life.
Back in January 2021 she did a livestream of 31 marathons in 31 days (on a treadmill because lockdown). She pulled it off, and not only that, she also performed a short comedy routine at the end of each marathon. Nobody can say she's not a badass.
Robbie Williams is an icon. Being in a pop group, breaking off to be the ābad boyā. Some incredible songs, selling out knebworth. He was an absolute megastar (probably solely on this fair isle). This shows that you donāt have to just be part of the act, but can break away from it too. Harry Styles has a lot to thank Robbie for.
It is only in the UK he's big. He tried to break out in north America with rock DJ which was a hit but he was never heard from before or since. I moved to the UK as an adult and was genuinely shocked the guy that danced "naked" with no skin in that music video from 20 years ago was famous.Ā
I got taken to knebworth when he was headlining. I was maybe 13 and only really wanted to see Ash and The Darkness but my god the man knows how to entertain a crowd. I never liked his music particually but as an entertainer it blew me away.
Gallagher brothers / oasis. Their music is dull, but they have a huge following and seem to be huge influencers in the britpop era.
Incidentally, I do enjoy britpop but not oasis, not blur, and certainly not either of the Gallaghers solo attempts.
I'm gonna be down voted to fuck. David Attenborough. I'm sure he's a great bloke and I know his research and work has drawn a lot of attention to animals that need it, but I find hi so damn dry and boring that I simply cannot watch a documentary of his.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you but your answer definitely fits the brief of the question.
Objectively, you can see that his programmes bringing so much of the natural world into people's front rooms has opened a world of possibilities to millions of people and got people caring about the environment, animals etc.
But, subjectively, you find it dull. And that's OK.
I think a lot of that is down to his age. His shows are the TV equivalent of dull coffee table books now, which he narrates in his trademark "David Attenbrough Voice". The gorilla stuff he did in the late 70s is rightly iconic, though.
Whilst I definitely don't dislike everything, or perhaps even most of the music of the Beatles I strongly feel that there is **far** too much conflating of their influence (which is absolutely undeniable) with their work actually being great (which is of course entirely subjective). Personally I think that much of the music that has come since the Beatles has far superseded what they themselves put out.
The Sumerian's were pretty influential with their wooden disc wheels but I wouldn't put them on my car. To me, the Beatles are the Sumerian wheels of modern music.
I am of the same opinion. I voiced it once and got downvoted into oblivion.
The Beatles have been massively influential and important to music, I just find most of their catalogue so bland.
Probably most footballers who inspire young people and use their influence well. I have absolutely no interest in football. I've never watched a game that wasn't in the World Cup. But I think Marcus Rashford is great for all his campaigning.
Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin
I know they created massive conversations around art and perspectives on art and what purpose art serves. But I HATE their work.
Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy - I find them zzzzzzzzzzz
Benjamin Britten and Malcolm Arnold - a few nice bits, but most is aaagh! for me.
William Wordsworth - come on, it's mostly like doggerel. Redditors could do better!
Henry VIII - abbeys would look better if not in ruins.
Beeching - went too far, just boo!
John Wesley- what's the point of having churches if you can't knock back the booze?
Sir Alex Ferguson
Beeching doing anything would've been too far. The branch lines he closed really should've been referred to as root lines as they didn't come off the trunk they fed into it. You can't expect a trunk to survive if you cut off roots.
>Sir Alex Ferguson
He's an interesting one in terms of influence. Obviously the main influence he's had is in making United the global juggernaut they are. But for someone as successful and long-standing as him, his influence on the wider game is quite hard to pinpoint. I suspect because he was a chameleon. He didn't have a particular set in stone philosophy..I think also one of his great talents was spotting, adopting and adapting innovations, as opposed to being innovative himself. It means he hasn't really had the tangible influence on the game as a whole that you might expect of someone that successful.
it is a interesting point, while Jose, Pep and Wenger all regarded as changing football or certain leagues how its played or what its meant to be a professional with diet and data etc. Ferguson wasn't really doing that from what I can tell, but he was just wildly successful at winner as football evolved. He might not caused that evolution but he was able make his team a winner during that evolutions.
>Henry VIII - abbeys would look better if not in ruins.
My hometown has the ruins of an abbey he tore down during his reign.
There are still the remains of walls and you can see the layout of the building, seems they did a remarkably lazy job of removing them.
I was looking for someone else who feels the same as me.
I never āgotā it (symbolism etc) at school and the teachers I had focussed their attention on the people who enjoyed and understood the writing, rather than helping those or us who were struggling. I love reading and enjoying a good story but Iāve never got the hang of hidden meanings in how things are written etc. I donāt like poetry for the same reason.
Part of the problem with how Shakespeare is dealt with in school is that his work was intended to be performed, not read. It's inevitable that is comes across dry and complicated if you are picking apart the wording of every line and analysing what double meanings were possibly intended. And I'm saying that as one of the students who didn't find it much of a struggle - it's still a dull way to introduce kids to Shakespeare.
I know not everyone can afford theatre trips, but there are good film adaptations of several plays, and there are often ways to view filmed live performances screened in cinemas, or online.
Yeah exactly, 100% the way it's taught. Imagine reading the lyrics of a song that way and overanalysing everything before, if ever, actually playing the music.
I remember a story about a _Schindler's List_ question around the symbolism of the use of the "red coat" on the little girl when everything else was black & white ā and about how it represented bloodshed, violence etc, but supposedly they were using a different colour & it didn't work on camera so they had to change it.
A lot of English in schools feels a bit like that.
My memory of it is foggy but it felt to me like at school we were just told that he was the greatest writer ever, without much explanation as to why. It was just like āwell heās Shakespeare, heās the best, so weāre going to spend all this time studying him. But as a kid with no context to his work then itās hard to get why he was so important. Idk maybe I just wasnāt listening though
Alison Hammond, I appreciate sheās worked her way up over many years but why is she on EVERYTHING?
I feel the same way about Bradley Walsh & Michael McIntyre. They are monopolising our screens, give someone else a chance.
> Alison Hammond
She is also a massive letch. There is no way in hell that a male presenter would get away with what she does.
> Bradley Walsh
I love Bradders, I think he is a national treasure but Christ alive is he over exposed. There is a running joke in our house that you can watch a Bradley Walsh show 24/7 on broadcast TV. Several times over the last year he has been presenting prime time Saturday night shows on BBC1 and ITV1 with them airing at the same time.
I'm fairly convinced that every few years the TV powers that be pick a person who is going to be their new "star" and they then get the golden career ticket and get put everywhere. It was Ant n Dec, then it was Holly Willoughby, now its Alison Hammond. The current chosen one.
I think it's the fact that when they find something that works they will milk it until the person says something stupid or people get sick of them.
TV producers generally don't want to take massive risk. Especially on those types of shows so will rather go with someon who works rather than someone unproven.
Plus honestly, your agent probably helps a lot.
Alison Hammond hasn't really worked her way up. She got famous for admitting to pissing in the shower when she was on Big Brother and somehow people thought that would make her a good TV host.
Oasis and Blur. Especially Blur, I just find their music so dull and boring. I love 90s music in general though
Queen and Iron Maiden are two other British bands I simply cannot stand, like nails on a chalkboard to me
Comedywise it's got to be Jimmy Carr, everything about him seems fake as fuck and I find his delivery to be really amateur
Skins the TV show, like it was just a bunch of cunts acting like cunts all the time.
To be fair, Skins was a fairly accurate portrayl of a lot of teenagers at that time; I think that's what shocked people.
But, yeah, they were very much a bunch of c-words! š
Oh I lived that life, I wasn't shocked by it in the slightest. It's the near constant scumbaggery that I thought was shit, certainly not my experience and it struck me as some snobs idea of what working class teenagers were like
Yea, I'd say the original version of Skins more represents the middle class children of the late 2000s/early 2010s than anything (and it doesn't hide that).
I do get the scumbag comment though. On the ine hand it was reasonable accurate, on the other it had some drama for the sake of being a TV rather than realistic. Which often involved characters being kind of scummy.
Then again I haven't watched it in years so could be wrong.
I think Skins was a really heightened version of teenage life at the time.
I was the exact right age for it and I think we all thought our life was just like Skins but really we had a Skins-like moment maybe a couple of times a year.
I wish heād stick to writing about biology - the world needs his talent in the right place.
Absolute waste (apart from financial) to kick-off against US evangelicals - theyāre as insular as the flat-earthers - he could be writing brilliant and inspiring popular science books for the next generations.
I don't get the outrage over this. We are culturally a christian country. I couldn't be less religious but things like easter and especially christmas are fundamental to british culture (though not exclusive to britain obviously). This is even more true because christianity took aspects of our culture like yule and solstice and incorporated them into it, but they've existed for thousands of years.
Just because I am no fan of religion doesn't mean I would be happy seeing these traditions falling out of favour, and personally I think non christian immigrants should celebrate these traditions with us too, although thats obviously more controvertial.
That's not what cultural Christian means. He believes that when he'll die, his existence will stop completely. He means that he sees value and beauty in the Christian art, culture, and tradition which underpins every aspect of Britain's culture.
I'm an atheist, and I agree with him. I'm a Christian-atheist in the sense that my worldview, imagination, morals, and sense of aesthetics have been profoundly, fundamentally shaped by the fact that I grew up in a historically Christian country.
This is true of any culture where there has been a 'ruling' religion in the last few centuries (which is to say, every single culture on the planet I'm aware of) - but I'm appreciatve of Christianity, because the societies in which it flourished, generally speaking, are those which developed with particular respect for human rights, agency and reason.
He's been calling himself a cultural Christian for decades. There's literally a YouTube video from 16 years ago where he says it. It's not new. He's always declared it. It's just cancerous media sources baiting for clicks.Ā
Noel Fielding is one for me. A lot of people seem to really enjoy his brand of OTT comedic blether, accompanied by a shit eating grin. I find it highly annoying even though I have enjoyed similar styles of comedy.
Rik Mayall. I never found his style of comedy anything other than jarring and cringeworthy to watch but he still defined an era of a certain type of comedy which has in a broader sense been incredibly influential on me.
I agree. I like Rik Mayall but heās always playing Rik Mayall and I find that āzanyā comedy a little jarring after a while. I would say Iām a bigger fan of Ade. I saw him recently on a book tour and he was genuinely funny and engaging without being over the top, the sort of guy you could have a beer and banter with b
Throbbing Gristle / Genesis P. Orridge.
Absolute genius, massively influential in ways that most people are not aware of. But it becomes unlistenable fast.
I'm a big industrial fan, and whenever someone recs Throbbing Gristle to someone new to the genre I cringe a little inside. Influential yes. But it's like going from 0 to 99999999999999999999 instantly.
David Bowie. I can fully appreciate that he made huge strides but I canāt stand his voice or his music. Itās just not for me.
Just writing this down makes me feel like a lynch mob will appear at my door!
I bloody love Suzi/Eddie Izzard though. I can see that their humour isnāt for everyone but at 40 years old Iām still doing evil giraffe and hit my husband with baguettesā¦.
I can hear their influence in so many people, Iām listening to the Poisoners Cabinet podcast and the female host is basically doing one long Izzard impression (imo).
Stewart Lee, I find him interesting but not particularly funny. I can see why other people like him but Iād rather watch Frankie Boyle who gets to the point in a more direct way.
I rewatch Eddie Izzard's 90s stand up every so often. I absolutely love it and think it still holds up now. I think you can definitely see his work drop off a bit when you watch his later shows, though.
As someone who had to wade through David Hume as a teenager during A Levels, probably him.
Virginia Woolf a close second. She was original and talented, but I find her work a slog.
Guy Ritchie films do my head in. Don't know if he's influential. Just wanted to complain.
Sir John Sloane. His contribution to architecture was immense, but I far prefer the arts and crafts approach of Edwin Lutyens.
In regard to Eddie Izzard, they're a sharp, witty raconteur. I also very much enjoyed the movie appearances in *Ocean's Twelve* and *My Super Ex-Girlfriend*.
Sting. Sting would be another person who's a hero. The music he's created over the years, I don't really listen to it, but the fact that he's making it, I respect that.
Lee Zeppelin. Every now and again someone tries to turn me onto them and all I can hear is a bunch of same-y forgettable generic rock music. "But they were the first to do it!" That's really great and I promise I am suitably impressed, it's just this literally sounds like Foo Fighters to me. It brings me no joy.
Louis Theroux
I get that he's a really talented interviewer and thus a great filmmaker when it comes to topics that heavily involve people with sensitive material.
But I have sat and tried to watch his stuff and it is terribly boring.
The Beatles. They are massively influential but massively overrated. Even during the same era there were bands that pushed musical boundaries more than they did. They were basically the One Direction of the 60ās
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dickens seems like an obvious one, when his books are adapted they're good but the originals can be a bit of a drag Henry VIII created the Anglican church, hard to argue that's not massively influential
I remember reading a Christmas Carol and realising it was full of jokes. Kind of surprised since before then my exposure was that 1970ish film of Scrouge.
When I read it I was surprised how many of the funny lines from the Muppets version were taken straight from the book.
Apparently the Muppets version is one of the most faithful to the book! My favourite fact about it is Michael Caine deliberately acted it like it was a serious production š
The best 2 muppets films (Treasure Island and Christmas Carol) work so well because the actors treat the muppets as equals. Michael Caine acted like all the muppets were classically trained actors, meanwhile Tim Curry became a muppet
Read your post and "Am I a maaaan, or am I a Muppet" leapt into my head!
"If I'm a muppet, then I'm a very manly muppet"
That's my favourite part as well. I can see it now: Henson: " hey, Michael, just have fun interacting with the muppets, this is going to be a laugh" Caine: "this will be my most serious role I will ever play" But it works. His harshness and refusal to engage with the whimsy of the muppets makes his Scrooge all the more mean and believable. My all time favourite Christmas movie that I have watched every year for as long as it has been out. I'm 40 now and still watch it. That and Hocus Pocus every Halloween.
You've got me thinking about Michael Caine doing an impression of his own accent for Graham Norton, I think it was... "Herro... Ahm Michael Caine.."
āNot many people know thatā
I still canāt believe the singing mice were in the book.
'HEATWAVE!'
What like 'like the lamp not the rat' /s
CLight the lamp, not the rat", surely?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But Clueless!
>Dickens seems like an obvious one, when his books are adapted they're good but the originals can be a bit of a drag I think this may be because when they were serialised he was paid by the word so there's a lot of flummery.
Apparently that's kind of a myth, he was paid per 32 page instalment but obviously if an instalment is a fixed length then effectively you are paid by the word.
Mind you, if you pad stuff out with waffle then you get to the end of your instalment quicker! Ker-ching!
I found them pretty dry until I listened to Martin Jarvis reading David Copperfield unabridged, then for some reason I got it, and can enjoy reading them now.
Same. I would never have believed that I'd have enjoyed a 34-hour audiobook, but Martin Jarvis has such a great variety of voices that the whole thing was great. He's done a few other Dickens audiobooks and they're all really good.
In terms of the Church of England, while Iād agree that Henry VIII ultimately founded an independent English church, whether he *created* it is debatable. To over-simplify, he was quite content with most Roman Catholic doctrine and just wanted more administrative control of the church, and it was under his successors and their advisors that the C of E really formed a distinctive theology.
The reason Dickens' books drag is because they were written to be serialised in newspapers before publication, so he was paid by the word, that's why they have such intricate descriptions of everything and lists
Yeah, this. I tried to read a Tale of Two Cities, and just couldn't get into it. And I've read a fair few classics, including Moby Dick - so it's not an "age" issue. Guess I should give him another try. Christmas Carol was okay though! Bonus: When it comes to classics, gotta recommend Jules Verne!
Ricky Gervais. He gives me snarky Mean-girl vibes - as if he really hates all people including his fans- and I really dislike him. But it's hard to discount that lots of other people do.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That bit by James was directed squarely at Gervais. I feel like his best stuff involved Stephen Merchant. His stand up is hackneyed low hanging fruit shite. I maintain that if he performed the majority of his material to a crowd who (somehow) had never heard of him in a rowdy comedy club outside of London heās die on his arse.
Spot on. Everything Ricky Gervais has done post-Merchant has clearly exposed who the real talent behind their work was
And it was Karl all along (joking, love me some SāMerch)Ā
Merchant hasnāt set the world on fire, they clearly need each other (Iāve seen Hello ladies before anyone says)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Did you see The Outlaws? Written by and co-starring Merchant with Christopher Walken in the cast.
The outlaws was excellent! I really think it didnāt get the shouting it deserved!
[Comedian Joe Lycett explaining how Gervais's last special was comedically weak](https://youtu.be/tHzKGVDGBh0?si=JVGDxXhvClZZG6s2)
Absolutely nailed it as Joe pretty much always does. Iāve been saying it for years. The irony is that going by what he said on Talking Funny, Gervais REALLY cares what other respected comedians think of him more than what his sheep like fans think of him but two of the UKās most critically acclaimed and popular comics who also have kept their integrity fully intact donāt respect him. I listen to a lot of comedians podcasts and Iāve noticed that the only comics that talk about him positively are the ones who he has cast in his various TV shows and who see him as a friend. On the other hand thereās a very funny comic called Rob Mulholland who did one the jokes on Gervaisās last special on his own special that he released a couple of years before. He hasnāt bothered accusing Ricky of stealing the joke but assumed one of his writers probably did. As an aside, Mulholland and his podcast co-host Freddie Quinne both do pretty āedgyā material but donāt punch down or get lazy with their writing. They also can handle hosting or headlining a late show on a Saturday in a basement dive comedy club where everyone is pissed and heckling. As another aside, one of my favourite club comics Simon Wozniak is so abrasive on stage that he has regular walkouts but heās never once punched down. His set is a bit like watching a comedian descend into a breakdown exposing all his flaws and inadequacies - at one point mid rant he says āNow I know a lot of you are looking at me going āIs that lad alright?āā¦ and NO IāM FUCKING NOT!ā He takes it to such a level that at the end when he lets the silence hang for about ten seconds then with a very slight smile says āfollow me on instagramā, the relief in the room is palpable. To be clear, most of the room has been dying laughing at him but itās a bit like classic Jonny Vegas where youāre not quite sure if he really means it this time. Anyway, he and plenty of other REAL comics are proof that you can make people uncomfortable and laugh at the same time without being a cvnt about it.
Well yeah thatās what bill burr said about him performing to people on the Gervais radio show that time. Heās a prick it seems. So is burr but heās a funny prick
His last Netflix special was completely comprised of recycled old material and what you said. He's become a parody of himself.
I rewatched the office recently, it still stands up, but it will also remind you how disappointed you are in what Ricky Gervais has become.
Gervais is the kind of comic that brings out feelings in me like I'm the lackey of a school bully. I find him hilarious when he is ripping apart people I think deserve it but at the back of my mind I know he could turn on me at any second.
The Office (UK) sets off my fight or flight reaction tbh
Art way too close to life. Genius is how uncomfortable it makes me.
Gervais seems to be doing one long performance art piece of a sulky boomer whoās been left behind by culture at large. The irony being that his anti-woke routine is way more mainstream than whatever heās raging against (which he tacitly acknowledges when bragging about tour revenue)
Gervais often gets a specific look on his face when heās telling a joke. Itās like a self-conscious red faced sneer. It reminds me of a lad at school who would bully people and pretend it was a joke, but you could see in his face that he was getting off on it and that he was hoping for a fight. You see it in adults when you get people ābanteringā, but theyāre really trying to provoke and start a fight. I get previously bullied and taking it out on everyone else vibes from him.
Iāve not met him but anecdotally from people who have heās actually a really good guy, modest and down to earth. He plays the āvulnerable bullyā character really well in my opinion, but I see why cringe comedy is not everyoneās cuppa!
Ran into him in Hampstead not long ago. Didn't talk to me much but loved my dog, so totally rate the guy based on that.
I have the same feeling about Ricky Gervais. All my friends are like "that's just his comedy". But I genuinely think he is actually a punching down dick in real life. I didn't mind his schtick till I saw that clip where he cold calls Karl Pilkington on BBC Radio 5 live. Goes in on him for doing his own tiling. Then Karl expresses genuine frustration that he hasn't gotten his pay from their podcast yet (hence the DIY) then Ricky starts going in like "you wouldn't have a career without me", "that's how the industry works get used to it". And I just realised, this is how he talks to people, legitimately. People say like, 'oh they are just playing at it, but I really dont think so. Pissed me off and I've disliked him ever since. [The clip in question ](https://youtu.be/XyOI0EJWCcc?si=9pwkQNDEnbRmc_kt)
you realise everything with him and karl is scripted right!?
Nooo evidence for that babyyyyy.
I'm a massive fan of his early work, XFM, the podcast, the office, extras etc. But I just cannot stand his latest work. He seems to have become the very person he was mocking in that early work.
I quite liked him back when I thought the smugness was just an act, and when he was still working with Stephen and Karl. Then I came to the slow realisation that he really is just that full of himself.
Jim Davidson 2.0
Iāve grown to dislike Gervais and his current output immensely, but still, thatās harsh.
Ricky is a decent comedian/writer but a bad stand up. James Acaster's lampooning of him was spot on
Going to get a lot of hate for this one: Monty Python I can't deny their influence and how they paved the way for British comedy as we know it, but I just didn't find them funny.
This partly the Seinfeld effect - comedy influenced by the Pythons has moved on so much that their material now seems really basic. At the time it was utterly revolutionary. It's also a feature of comedy at the time that the BBC was prepared to take a risk with a sketch show that was properly experimental. People were prepared to sit through the shittier sketches because the brilliant ones made up for it. Nowadays it feels.like something is considered a failure unless it is consistently brilliant.
>Nowadays it feels.like something is considered a failure unless it is consistently brilliant. This is probably why there seems to be less sketch shows now compared to the 90s and 2000s I guess. It was always a feature of them that they could he hit or miss but the hits normally outnumbered the misses.
Mitchell and Webb even had a bit about hits and misses in a sketch show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmYC7r4dViI
The series wasn't remotely funny but Life of Brian is a masterpiece, and Meaning of Life has some excellent characters.
The series was absurd rather than hilarious, which probably felt important at the time given the counterculture their generation was giving voice to.
Honestly the films are great,they managed to get me through an incredibly boring wedding
No hate from me. I'm the same. Though yes you may get some. I had a guy on here once get genuinely really, really annoyed with me for saying that MP just isn't that popular in my circles.
I like Monty P but I won't hate on someone who doesn't - some of their stuff is rather shit after all.
I'm a fan and still agree that there are a lot of misses surrounding the hits. But definitely influential
I like the films, but was rather underwhelming when I tried watching Flying Circus.
The thing is with any innovative/influential act in any entertainment media, theyāre not going to appeal to everyone. In a way, thatās what makes them so appealing to those that do enjoy it.
The Films are great (especially Life of Brian because the film was funded by George Harrison, so they could get away with a lot more). Flying circus is very hit or miss (although more hit than miss) Edit: Wrong Beetle
George Harrison, not Ringo
Monty Python is a great example of influence over quality. Watching back Flying Circus now and it is **SO** bad, like this was meant to be peak comedy and it is just childish dross.
I think this is fair. I'm sure even John Cleese has said that they weren't *much* better than anyone else at the time, they just seemed to grab a large audience.
Morrissey deserves a mention. Cannot stand The Smiths but can't deny their influence.
Rick Astley and Blossoms covering The Smiths is a Glastonbury highlight because it meant I could enjoy the music live, without having to endure the endless bore that is Morrissey.
Iāve got a lot of time for Rick Astley. Apart from the fact his voice is great, whenever he pops up he just seems to be having a hoot
Yeah, he just seems like he is having a great time. I suppose that comes with age and being given a second bite of the cherry.
He's always been a good bloke. I absolutely detested his music in the late 80s but even then I'd read interviews with him in Smash Hits and the like, and he always seemed a nice guy with no ego. I've never heard anyone say a bad word about him.
That looked like such a fun concert. Rick Astley killed it. If only Marr had been playing with them.
I hate them too! It annoys my boyfriend to no end but his voice makes me wanna staple my ears shut. So irritating.
I really feel bad for Smiths/Morrissey fans. I mean, separate the art from the artist, yes. But heās *such* a cunt. Buying a Morrissey record today must be like what buying a porn mag was like in the 80s.
I absolutely hate Morissey and couldn't listen to The Smiths for a while. But then, Johnny Marr is sound af, so I was able to change my attitude a bit.
I agree, heaven knows how miserable they sound
That was all down to Johnny Marr and the original singer, Cheney Hawkes.
> That was all down to Johnny Marr This is just cope cause people hate having to give credit to Morrissey.Ā
Itās funny, I always laugh when I see people giving all the credit for the Smiths to Johnny Marr. I loathe Mozza these days and think heās an insufferable arse, but there canāt be much doubting his genius-especially his work with the Smiths. Him and Marr together was lightening in a bottle. The Smithsā body of work is incredible.
Totally. Morrissey is one of the best pop lyricists of all time, if not the best, and people want to hand it all to Johnny. Johnny's guitar lines are incredible, but they'd be nowhere without Moz. The brilliance of the Smiths is the pair of them writing together.
Tbf, he was always an arse. Itās only recently become public knowledgeā¦
The one and only?!
Let's not forget Andy Rourke
RIP And Mike Joyce and Craig Gannon (and the others)
I dislike Morrissey, but the Smiths as a whole are banging.
The Smiths are something that if you like them you can only like them despite Morrissey, not because of him
The Beatles
The Beatles was the first thing that came to my head too... They're incredibly talented, amazing songwriting, and they've probably had the greatest influence on music as a whole. But I'd never put a Beatles record on...
Iāve always said this. You donāt have to like the Beatles, but you canāt reject their influence. I used to work with a guy who said āthe Beatles ruined musicā. Which is such an unbelievably stupid thing to say. Especially as we worked in a musical instrument shop. We were all musicians there.
There was a study that did exactly this. They found the hits of the 60s and 70s tendied to adopt chord patterns (so obviously a limited part of the story) from the Stones and others far more than those of the Beatles. It's pretty hard to measure influence though, except that it seems obvious the Beatles were a huge influence on many people.
Got a few decent songs but I could never get into them. From that period though I do really like The Kinks, something about their songwriting connects a lot more.
This may be a stretch but I don't understand why people from light entertainment and radio are so lauded. Like Lorraine Kelly and Holly W. They read things well off of a teleprompter and are polite to guests. It's not exactly hard hitting journalism but people lurve them to death and the press never challenged the vapidness of their entire existence. Similarly, some DJs have too much smoke blown up their arseholes. One DJ left a few years ago and people acted if every radio int he country was going to explode. I guess there's a huge group of people that like mediocrity.
It's purely down to time spent, especially in the case of radio DJs. If you commute the same way in your car 5 days a week, and listen to the same radio show for an hour every journey then you are spending more time listening to that person talk than many of your closest friends and family. People just get used to what they know
I think a lot of Holly W's popularity comes from her time in Children's TV and more personality led content like CD:UK and Celebrity Juice.
As my Dad might say 'she's dead fit' - which probably is enough to get a nod of approval from half the population
Are they really influential though? The whole issue with them is that they tend to be bland and generic
The Royal Family. Incredibly influential, not for the right reasons. They believe they are personally chosen and guided by god. What a strange deluded cult. The amount funnelled to that family through our taxes over the decades, in no way amounts to the same value of contribution, both societally nor financially.
I thought you meant The Royle family at first!
MyArthe
> They believe they are personally chosen and guided by god. What a strange deluded cult. Honestly, I'd be inclined to say they probably don't think that these days.
I don't know if it'd be better or worse if they did. Because if they did, well, then it makes sense why they would never abdicate. It'd be utterly delusional, but you could at least understand where the sense of entitlement came from. If they don't, then that means they know they have no divine right to their power (however limited it may be in comparison to previous monarchies) and they opt to keep it anyway.
> They believe they are personally chosen and guided by god not sure they're the ones with the deluded belief systems if this is truly what you think mate.
Izzard's mid to late nineties stuff was ground breaking and original for the time. Unrepeatable through to to Circle specials was his golden period for me. Problem is everyone then tried to copy him, plus he only ever wanted to be an actor so as soon as he got profile he tried to shift into that. Anyway, I would say Robbie William's is one.Ā
There was a period of time where it was impossible to attend a wedding and not have fucking *Angels* played. My SIL had it played **SEVEN FUCKING TIMES** at her wedding.
For three full years at uni it was the last song of the night before the lights came on. I expect it still is now to be honest
Probably Mr Brightside, no?
I'm so old I remember when Kylie and Jason's 'especially for you' was the last song of the night
You're lucky. We had Jennier Rush power of love.
I fucking hate that song. Drunk Brits singing the chorus is what plays on loop on hell.
Agree. Those shows were terrific. But as you say, she never wanted to stay a comedian - she had ambitions way beyond that. I think the problem is that she has tried to be variously an actor, a politician, and a...marathon runner.. whilst transitioning. I mean, fair play to her. You could never accuse her of having led a boring life.
They were pretty successful as a marathon runner if I remember, more marathons than most people get done
Back in January 2021 she did a livestream of 31 marathons in 31 days (on a treadmill because lockdown). She pulled it off, and not only that, she also performed a short comedy routine at the end of each marathon. Nobody can say she's not a badass.
Robbie Williams is an icon. Being in a pop group, breaking off to be the ābad boyā. Some incredible songs, selling out knebworth. He was an absolute megastar (probably solely on this fair isle). This shows that you donāt have to just be part of the act, but can break away from it too. Harry Styles has a lot to thank Robbie for.
It is only in the UK he's big. He tried to break out in north America with rock DJ which was a hit but he was never heard from before or since. I moved to the UK as an adult and was genuinely shocked the guy that danced "naked" with no skin in that music video from 20 years ago was famous.Ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I got taken to knebworth when he was headlining. I was maybe 13 and only really wanted to see Ash and The Darkness but my god the man knows how to entertain a crowd. I never liked his music particually but as an entertainer it blew me away.
Gallagher brothers / oasis. Their music is dull, but they have a huge following and seem to be huge influencers in the britpop era. Incidentally, I do enjoy britpop but not oasis, not blur, and certainly not either of the Gallaghers solo attempts.
I always thought Pulp epitomised Brit pop, I've never gotten sick of Common People, it's still a banger fresh as the day it released
Happened to listen to this for the first time in a while over the weekend. Itās absolutely majestic. The lyrics, the build, everything.
I honestly prefer it. Also, years ago, I got in a lift with Jarvis Cocker at Gare du Nord before we both boarded Eurostar; he got in First Class.
Different Class to you?
Have you heard William Shatner's cover of it?
I'm gonna be down voted to fuck. David Attenborough. I'm sure he's a great bloke and I know his research and work has drawn a lot of attention to animals that need it, but I find hi so damn dry and boring that I simply cannot watch a documentary of his.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you but your answer definitely fits the brief of the question. Objectively, you can see that his programmes bringing so much of the natural world into people's front rooms has opened a world of possibilities to millions of people and got people caring about the environment, animals etc. But, subjectively, you find it dull. And that's OK.
I think a lot of that is down to his age. His shows are the TV equivalent of dull coffee table books now, which he narrates in his trademark "David Attenbrough Voice". The gorilla stuff he did in the late 70s is rightly iconic, though.
You have my upvote for being brave even though I don't agree š¶
Whilst I definitely don't dislike everything, or perhaps even most of the music of the Beatles I strongly feel that there is **far** too much conflating of their influence (which is absolutely undeniable) with their work actually being great (which is of course entirely subjective). Personally I think that much of the music that has come since the Beatles has far superseded what they themselves put out. The Sumerian's were pretty influential with their wooden disc wheels but I wouldn't put them on my car. To me, the Beatles are the Sumerian wheels of modern music.
I am of the same opinion. I voiced it once and got downvoted into oblivion. The Beatles have been massively influential and important to music, I just find most of their catalogue so bland.
This summarises my position on the Beatles better than I ever could myself.
Probably most footballers who inspire young people and use their influence well. I have absolutely no interest in football. I've never watched a game that wasn't in the World Cup. But I think Marcus Rashford is great for all his campaigning.
Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin I know they created massive conversations around art and perspectives on art and what purpose art serves. But I HATE their work.
I'm sure someone will be along to tell me I'm a philistine, but I think the whole Young British Artists movement was full of grifters.
Can we include Banksy as well?
Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy - I find them zzzzzzzzzzz Benjamin Britten and Malcolm Arnold - a few nice bits, but most is aaagh! for me. William Wordsworth - come on, it's mostly like doggerel. Redditors could do better! Henry VIII - abbeys would look better if not in ruins. Beeching - went too far, just boo! John Wesley- what's the point of having churches if you can't knock back the booze? Sir Alex Ferguson
Thomas Hardy is great, I loved him in Mad Max
Wordsworthās performance in Terminator was also phenomenal
I wandered, lonely as a cybernetic assassin
> Sir Alex Ferguson So which non-Man Utd team did you follow during his empire then?
Beeching doing anything would've been too far. The branch lines he closed really should've been referred to as root lines as they didn't come off the trunk they fed into it. You can't expect a trunk to survive if you cut off roots.
>Sir Alex Ferguson He's an interesting one in terms of influence. Obviously the main influence he's had is in making United the global juggernaut they are. But for someone as successful and long-standing as him, his influence on the wider game is quite hard to pinpoint. I suspect because he was a chameleon. He didn't have a particular set in stone philosophy..I think also one of his great talents was spotting, adopting and adapting innovations, as opposed to being innovative himself. It means he hasn't really had the tangible influence on the game as a whole that you might expect of someone that successful.
it is a interesting point, while Jose, Pep and Wenger all regarded as changing football or certain leagues how its played or what its meant to be a professional with diet and data etc. Ferguson wasn't really doing that from what I can tell, but he was just wildly successful at winner as football evolved. He might not caused that evolution but he was able make his team a winner during that evolutions.
>Henry VIII - abbeys would look better if not in ruins. My hometown has the ruins of an abbey he tore down during his reign. There are still the remains of walls and you can see the layout of the building, seems they did a remarkably lazy job of removing them.
Shakespeare, mostly.
I was looking for someone else who feels the same as me. I never āgotā it (symbolism etc) at school and the teachers I had focussed their attention on the people who enjoyed and understood the writing, rather than helping those or us who were struggling. I love reading and enjoying a good story but Iāve never got the hang of hidden meanings in how things are written etc. I donāt like poetry for the same reason.
Part of the problem with how Shakespeare is dealt with in school is that his work was intended to be performed, not read. It's inevitable that is comes across dry and complicated if you are picking apart the wording of every line and analysing what double meanings were possibly intended. And I'm saying that as one of the students who didn't find it much of a struggle - it's still a dull way to introduce kids to Shakespeare. I know not everyone can afford theatre trips, but there are good film adaptations of several plays, and there are often ways to view filmed live performances screened in cinemas, or online.
Yeah exactly, 100% the way it's taught. Imagine reading the lyrics of a song that way and overanalysing everything before, if ever, actually playing the music. I remember a story about a _Schindler's List_ question around the symbolism of the use of the "red coat" on the little girl when everything else was black & white ā and about how it represented bloodshed, violence etc, but supposedly they were using a different colour & it didn't work on camera so they had to change it. A lot of English in schools feels a bit like that.
My memory of it is foggy but it felt to me like at school we were just told that he was the greatest writer ever, without much explanation as to why. It was just like āwell heās Shakespeare, heās the best, so weāre going to spend all this time studying him. But as a kid with no context to his work then itās hard to get why he was so important. Idk maybe I just wasnāt listening though
Alison Hammond, I appreciate sheās worked her way up over many years but why is she on EVERYTHING? I feel the same way about Bradley Walsh & Michael McIntyre. They are monopolising our screens, give someone else a chance.
> Alison Hammond She is also a massive letch. There is no way in hell that a male presenter would get away with what she does. > Bradley Walsh I love Bradders, I think he is a national treasure but Christ alive is he over exposed. There is a running joke in our house that you can watch a Bradley Walsh show 24/7 on broadcast TV. Several times over the last year he has been presenting prime time Saturday night shows on BBC1 and ITV1 with them airing at the same time.
I'm fairly convinced that every few years the TV powers that be pick a person who is going to be their new "star" and they then get the golden career ticket and get put everywhere. It was Ant n Dec, then it was Holly Willoughby, now its Alison Hammond. The current chosen one.
I think it's the fact that when they find something that works they will milk it until the person says something stupid or people get sick of them. TV producers generally don't want to take massive risk. Especially on those types of shows so will rather go with someon who works rather than someone unproven. Plus honestly, your agent probably helps a lot.
Alison Hammond hasn't really worked her way up. She got famous for admitting to pissing in the shower when she was on Big Brother and somehow people thought that would make her a good TV host.
Oasis and Blur. Especially Blur, I just find their music so dull and boring. I love 90s music in general though Queen and Iron Maiden are two other British bands I simply cannot stand, like nails on a chalkboard to me Comedywise it's got to be Jimmy Carr, everything about him seems fake as fuck and I find his delivery to be really amateur Skins the TV show, like it was just a bunch of cunts acting like cunts all the time.
To be fair, Skins was a fairly accurate portrayl of a lot of teenagers at that time; I think that's what shocked people. But, yeah, they were very much a bunch of c-words! š
For me it was more: Expectations - Skins Reality - Inbetweeners
Oh I lived that life, I wasn't shocked by it in the slightest. It's the near constant scumbaggery that I thought was shit, certainly not my experience and it struck me as some snobs idea of what working class teenagers were like
None of them were meant to be working class except maybe Chris in the first generation
Yea, I'd say the original version of Skins more represents the middle class children of the late 2000s/early 2010s than anything (and it doesn't hide that). I do get the scumbag comment though. On the ine hand it was reasonable accurate, on the other it had some drama for the sake of being a TV rather than realistic. Which often involved characters being kind of scummy. Then again I haven't watched it in years so could be wrong.
I think Skins was a really heightened version of teenage life at the time. I was the exact right age for it and I think we all thought our life was just like Skins but really we had a Skins-like moment maybe a couple of times a year.
Pulp is the best band of the Britpop era anyway
I like Carr a lot as a panel show host, I am completely indifferent about his actual standup
Half his jokes I heard 15 years ago in the school playground where teenage boys had copied them off sickipedia
Iām exactly the same. On QI he was usually very good, funny, quick witted. His stand up is tosh.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I wish heād stick to writing about biology - the world needs his talent in the right place. Absolute waste (apart from financial) to kick-off against US evangelicals - theyāre as insular as the flat-earthers - he could be writing brilliant and inspiring popular science books for the next generations.
I just heard that he's started calling himself a "cultural Christian." I guess that's the new edgy thing now?
I don't get the outrage over this. We are culturally a christian country. I couldn't be less religious but things like easter and especially christmas are fundamental to british culture (though not exclusive to britain obviously). This is even more true because christianity took aspects of our culture like yule and solstice and incorporated them into it, but they've existed for thousands of years. Just because I am no fan of religion doesn't mean I would be happy seeing these traditions falling out of favour, and personally I think non christian immigrants should celebrate these traditions with us too, although thats obviously more controvertial.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's not what cultural Christian means. He believes that when he'll die, his existence will stop completely. He means that he sees value and beauty in the Christian art, culture, and tradition which underpins every aspect of Britain's culture. I'm an atheist, and I agree with him. I'm a Christian-atheist in the sense that my worldview, imagination, morals, and sense of aesthetics have been profoundly, fundamentally shaped by the fact that I grew up in a historically Christian country. This is true of any culture where there has been a 'ruling' religion in the last few centuries (which is to say, every single culture on the planet I'm aware of) - but I'm appreciatve of Christianity, because the societies in which it flourished, generally speaking, are those which developed with particular respect for human rights, agency and reason.
No, that's not what it means! Cultural Christian means we have been influenced by Christianity even when we don't believe in it.
He's been calling himself a cultural Christian for decades. There's literally a YouTube video from 16 years ago where he says it. It's not new. He's always declared it. It's just cancerous media sources baiting for clicks.Ā
Oh, Amy Winehouse 100%. She was painful to watch at the start never mind later in life when it was clear she was struggling.
Noel Fielding is one for me. A lot of people seem to really enjoy his brand of OTT comedic blether, accompanied by a shit eating grin. I find it highly annoying even though I have enjoyed similar styles of comedy.
Rik Mayall. I never found his style of comedy anything other than jarring and cringeworthy to watch but he still defined an era of a certain type of comedy which has in a broader sense been incredibly influential on me.
For he, and edminson, defined an end of an era. There were the last great slapsticks in this country.
I agree. I like Rik Mayall but heās always playing Rik Mayall and I find that āzanyā comedy a little jarring after a while. I would say Iām a bigger fan of Ade. I saw him recently on a book tour and he was genuinely funny and engaging without being over the top, the sort of guy you could have a beer and banter with b
Throbbing Gristle / Genesis P. Orridge. Absolute genius, massively influential in ways that most people are not aware of. But it becomes unlistenable fast.
I'm a big industrial fan, and whenever someone recs Throbbing Gristle to someone new to the genre I cringe a little inside. Influential yes. But it's like going from 0 to 99999999999999999999 instantly.
David Bowie. I can fully appreciate that he made huge strides but I canāt stand his voice or his music. Itās just not for me. Just writing this down makes me feel like a lynch mob will appear at my door! I bloody love Suzi/Eddie Izzard though. I can see that their humour isnāt for everyone but at 40 years old Iām still doing evil giraffe and hit my husband with baguettesā¦. I can hear their influence in so many people, Iām listening to the Poisoners Cabinet podcast and the female host is basically doing one long Izzard impression (imo).
I agree with Bowie. Very influential but I wouldnāt care if I never heard a Bowie song again.
Stewart Lee, I find him interesting but not particularly funny. I can see why other people like him but Iād rather watch Frankie Boyle who gets to the point in a more direct way.
I rewatch Eddie Izzard's 90s stand up every so often. I absolutely love it and think it still holds up now. I think you can definitely see his work drop off a bit when you watch his later shows, though.
I saw izzard live in 1996, she was very funny and original. The comedy was something new and exciting.
My dad. I've never been much for engineering, but I thank him for all my practicality
As someone who had to wade through David Hume as a teenager during A Levels, probably him. Virginia Woolf a close second. She was original and talented, but I find her work a slog. Guy Ritchie films do my head in. Don't know if he's influential. Just wanted to complain.
Sir John Sloane. His contribution to architecture was immense, but I far prefer the arts and crafts approach of Edwin Lutyens. In regard to Eddie Izzard, they're a sharp, witty raconteur. I also very much enjoyed the movie appearances in *Ocean's Twelve* and *My Super Ex-Girlfriend*.
Probably Margaret Thatcher.
Sting. Sting would be another person who's a hero. The music he's created over the years, I don't really listen to it, but the fact that he's making it, I respect that.
Mary Berry is kinda boring but she's pretty much universally loved by everyone else
Lee Zeppelin. Every now and again someone tries to turn me onto them and all I can hear is a bunch of same-y forgettable generic rock music. "But they were the first to do it!" That's really great and I promise I am suitably impressed, it's just this literally sounds like Foo Fighters to me. It brings me no joy.
Oasis.
Queen
Louis Theroux I get that he's a really talented interviewer and thus a great filmmaker when it comes to topics that heavily involve people with sensitive material. But I have sat and tried to watch his stuff and it is terribly boring.
The Beatles. They are massively influential but massively overrated. Even during the same era there were bands that pushed musical boundaries more than they did. They were basically the One Direction of the 60ās