I now see Little Britain in a different light.

I'd definately agree with the poster(s) who said that the League merit more credit for actually developing their characters beyond mere catchphrases. And the League don't simply revist characters by placing the same characters in slightly altered surroundings (if at all) just to get to the same punchline each time). One of the great things about the League is that, for the most part, you never really know where a scene is going to end up. There are some exeptions of course. With Tubbs and Edward, you know chances are they'll end up killing the customer, but there's such a huge array of bizarre actions and lines brought into it, it never feels tedious. With Pauline, you know she'll end up digging into Ross at some point, but the various scenarios laid out mean you can never really get bored by it.

Also, one thing that sets the League in a different league to the Little Britain, is that their far more daring and intelligent when it comes to writing. Unlike Little Britain, the League went somewhere much darker throughout their run, and their third series (which they admit was difficult) could have been a disaster what with such a radical change of format. Little Britain has never been like that. Any time I watched it I hoped they'd try and steer it in a new direction, but aside from a few funny changes in setting, there's not much substance to any of their sketches. Some of my favourite Little Britain sketches are those that are the stand alone ones (the deranged driving instructor in series one, the persistant mother pushing her kid into showbiz in series one and the hilarious south african masseuse in the pilot) It's a shame there wasn't a bit more diversity in Little Britain, as I definately think it had the potential. They shouldn't have stretched it out so long, and the show would have benefited from having ongoing sketches like the woman working at the university put into just one episode, with her sketches recurring through just that one episode, rather than strethced throughout the series. It would have made each episode gain a bit more identity and allowed the show to throw up something fresh and new each time.

"If I was R&M or TLOG, I would sue. A lot. Friends don't STEAL. "

Friends do, however, hire one another as script supervisors - and often script supervisors do a lot more writing and shaping material than you might think.

Mark Gatiss of LOG was the script supervisor for LB's first and best series. It seems pretty clear that he gave them ideas, they didn't just steal them. No doubt brilliant director Steve Bendelack shaped a lot of their great visual jokes too (like the milkmen who fling bottles at doors and break them).

My favorite blatant example of LOG ripoff: Ann the nonverbal weirdo with no social skills on LOG becomes...Ann, the nonverbal weirdo with no social skills on LB! The only difference is that LOG did it and put it away, and LB trots it out each week for years. *SIGH*

Interesting about Lou and Andy being a ripoff - I always thought they were LB's best creation. Anyone else want to chime in with other examples of LB idea thievery?

In the end - I really like LB as performers, but they aren't very good writers and, apparently, way too egotistical to allow others to help them write. What a shame!


*********************************************
* "We may be stupid, but we're not clever!" *

Pauline was a staple of the LOG live shows, predating either gang being on TV.

So let the date debate continue...as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant. The proof is in the pudding. Pauline lives and breathes; Marjorie ALmost does, but then sinks into stock-phrase repetition. Who had the idea first? It looks like they all might have had it together. More importantly: who actually had BETTER ideas? By the time everyone got to TV, it was clear who this character "belonged" to. If LB were better writers with more and better ideas, they either would have scrapped it OR done a much better job - which would have eliminated this dialogue, because it would be more than the pale imitation it is.

I didn't know they were all so intimate as young performers, that explains a LOT actually.

Still wondering - still hope someone will comment some more - on Gatiss's feelings about his work with LB. That bit about rubbing is backside on a LB poster is funny, but if they are actually still friends (which is possible, that's what I'm wondering) then that could easily be seen as a friendly josh about LB's bigger commercial success.

Can anyone find an interview where anyone talks about the partnership? Maybe Bendelack has something to say, as longtime collaborator with both?

Calling all fans - any insight, quotes, links to articles etc., appreciated.


*********************************************
* "We may be stupid, but we're not clever!" *

Back in 2005, Little Britain loathers (and League of Gentlemen lovers) Neil Davenport and Mick Hume (both from the peerless online publication Spiked) hit the nail on the head when it comes to Lucas and Walliams's nasty, infantile, misanthropic little show:

In a League of their own:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/813/

Is Little Britain the slightest bit funny? The clear answer is 'Nobutnobutno':

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mick_hume/article591387.ece

The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.