3 ms·

The story about the pulled IT Crowd episode is covered here: https://screenrant.com/it-crowd-controversy-graham-linehan-april-transphobic-bad/ https://screenran

The story about the pulled IT Crowd episode is covered here: https://screenrant.com/it-crowd-controversy-graham-linehan-april-transphobic-bad/ https://screenrant.com/it-crowd-controversy-graham-linehan-a...

mdp2021 4y ago
With a very heavy perspective. Among the recurrent signs, the following suffices: > inviting laughter and derision toward the... community No. Just finding an occasion for the selected direction in creativity. Which the writer of the article seems to want to make ideological, with the exception of one use of the expression "«cheap laugh»" (which, for that matter, may bring attention to the other "celebrated" subplot of "the elders of the Internet" - using the same perspective, it would be as if "making cheap laughs through a sort of "ableism"").
- pxc 4y ago
  Nah dude. I recently re-watched the whole show, and while I liked certain parts of it... it's a very transphobic show. And it's not just that episode; that episode gets callbacks in future episodes all the time. It's a mean spirited gag, and the mere fact of being transgender is the punch line, over and over. It sucks. It makes revisiting the show more cringey and less fun.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    Since you raised your doubts, I just re-watched it - series 3, episode 4. And I confirm the view. The whole episode is about the clumsiness of living, consistently with the project idea ("the IT crowd", outcast specialists with little interface to the public, which is a mass of people thrown into some role "«not doing much work but constantly having affairs»" - confused humans -, with a link which is the portrait of incompetence trying to make a living - trying to live - into something she does not understand). All the characters do is "attempting", trying to fit a role. The difficulties of living roles could be a trigger for the development of the substory involving Douglas Reynholm and April (and the gender instrumental to that). The whole idea climaxes in the "collapse of civilization" when the "stakeholders", as "topmost layer of the role-players", are in front of the catastrophic loss of the Internet, and the "punchline from above" is that of Moss: «It really isn't that funny» - of course, because it is tragic. While I could see that the "It's over" scene could be to some extent insensitive, given that the writers may have supposed that it would be something lived by a number in such group, it was instrumental to the fight scene, which is a consolidated topos. And the "victory" seems to be on the other side, since the "punchline from inside" is that of Douglas, which ends the episode crying, going "It's not the same!" (It's not the same without her, or him - as she was both the "other half" and the "pal"). So, not only I do not see a phobia, but on the contrary, I see the opposite message, towards seeing people for what they are, and to love that whatever they are (also since the premise of the whole is, as said, that they will be confused imperfect players) - Douglas could not and he is alone crying.
  - lotsoweiners 4y ago
    I don't recall the episode, been probably 10 years since I watched the show, but lots of things "suck" if you watch them through your 2023 eye. Whether a show came out in 1955 or 1999, I just enjoy it as a product of it's time.
    - pxc 4y ago
      Definitely true. I'm not here to say that no one else can or should enjoy the show, or that it's unique in having aged poorly in some respects. But the problems with that episode and later ones (which are not entirely one note about Douglas' relationship with the transgender woman, despite the very painful fight scene and the overwhelming fact that being transgender is the punchline) are real and not made up, and I can understand why they'd be deeply uncomfortable to many people. > Whether a show came out in 1955 or 1999, I just enjoy it as a product of it's time. This is great when one can do it, and I think it's a fine approach. But of course, if you were gay in 1955 or trans in 1999, there's probably a lot of shows where certain issues— common enough at the time— would have really diminished your enjoyment and maybe even triggered some dysphoria, even 'at the time'.

mdp2021 4y ago

With a very heavy perspective. Among the recurrent signs, the following suffices: > inviting laughter and derision toward the... community No. Just finding an occasion for the selected direction in creativity. Which the writer of the article seems to want to make ideological, with the exception of one use of the expression "«cheap laugh»" (which, for that matter, may bring attention to the other "celebrated" subplot of "the elders of the Internet" - using the same perspective, it would be as if "making cheap laughs through a sort of "ableism"").

pxc 4y ago
Nah dude. I recently re-watched the whole show, and while I liked certain parts of it... it's a very transphobic show. And it's not just that episode; that episode gets callbacks in future episodes all the time. It's a mean spirited gag, and the mere fact of being transgender is the punch line, over and over. It sucks. It makes revisiting the show more cringey and less fun.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Since you raised your doubts, I just re-watched it - series 3, episode 4. And I confirm the view. The whole episode is about the clumsiness of living, consistently with the project idea ("the IT crowd", outcast specialists with little interface to the public, which is a mass of people thrown into some role "«not doing much work but constantly having affairs»" - confused humans -, with a link which is the portrait of incompetence trying to make a living - trying to live - into something she does not understand). All the characters do is "attempting", trying to fit a role. The difficulties of living roles could be a trigger for the development of the substory involving Douglas Reynholm and April (and the gender instrumental to that). The whole idea climaxes in the "collapse of civilization" when the "stakeholders", as "topmost layer of the role-players", are in front of the catastrophic loss of the Internet, and the "punchline from above" is that of Moss: «It really isn't that funny» - of course, because it is tragic. While I could see that the "It's over" scene could be to some extent insensitive, given that the writers may have supposed that it would be something lived by a number in such group, it was instrumental to the fight scene, which is a consolidated topos. And the "victory" seems to be on the other side, since the "punchline from inside" is that of Douglas, which ends the episode crying, going "It's not the same!" (It's not the same without her, or him - as she was both the "other half" and the "pal"). So, not only I do not see a phobia, but on the contrary, I see the opposite message, towards seeing people for what they are, and to love that whatever they are (also since the premise of the whole is, as said, that they will be confused imperfect players) - Douglas could not and he is alone crying.
- lotsoweiners 4y ago
  I don't recall the episode, been probably 10 years since I watched the show, but lots of things "suck" if you watch them through your 2023 eye. Whether a show came out in 1955 or 1999, I just enjoy it as a product of it's time.
  - pxc 4y ago
    Definitely true. I'm not here to say that no one else can or should enjoy the show, or that it's unique in having aged poorly in some respects. But the problems with that episode and later ones (which are not entirely one note about Douglas' relationship with the transgender woman, despite the very painful fight scene and the overwhelming fact that being transgender is the punchline) are real and not made up, and I can understand why they'd be deeply uncomfortable to many people. > Whether a show came out in 1955 or 1999, I just enjoy it as a product of it's time. This is great when one can do it, and I think it's a fine approach. But of course, if you were gay in 1955 or trans in 1999, there's probably a lot of shows where certain issues— common enough at the time— would have really diminished your enjoyment and maybe even triggered some dysphoria, even 'at the time'.