The World of David Walliams: General Discussion

[yoursilentface]

What would be the response if the shop wasn’t put in the Walliams world? Accusations of racism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point..... I can see the headline now

'Horror smash theme park erases ethnic minority from Williams world'

The nations theme park loving snowflakes having meltdowns left right and centre and blaming merlin for everything including covid

Maybe...

 

[Themeparksandy1981]

Erm... what?

Sorry was starting a shift so didn’t notice that it spelled it wrong.

 

[ringo]

Seems people are determined to try and bring Walliams down somehow.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...umiliating-young-men-pulling-pants-stage.html

Shocking footage of David Walliams humiliating young men by pulling down their pants on stage in 'hide the sausage' game during 2007 Little Britain tour is
slammed as 'sickening' and 'unacceptable'

• The clip is from a BBC documentary featuring Little Britain in Australia in 2007
• Walliams, now 48, plays a predatory gay ex-kids' TV entertainer called Des Kaye
• He invites young men from the audience who volunteered to go up on stage to play 'hide the sausage'
• During the sketch he simulates buggery and appears to kiss their bare buttocks
• They are left grappling to protect their modesty and keep their genitals covered
• BBC said the footage is not available on iPlayer having been last aired in 2007

 

[Steve74]

Seems people are determined to try and bring Walliams down somehow.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...umiliating-young-men-pulling-pants-stage.html

• He invites young men from the audience who volunteered to go up on stage to play 'hide the sausage'

Key word there is volunteered. Everyone who attended the show would've been a fan of Little Britain plus I'm sure there were warnings about what to expect (ie adult humour and language) and no-one certainly would have been forced to have gone to see it.

 

[Jonathan]

I remember one of the extra features on the Little Britain DVD boxset (yes, I still have it) did a BTS of the Little Britain Live tour in Australia. They got a complaint about that particular sketch, and I believe they did remove it after the complaint was received.

 

[jon81uk]

From memory the League of Gentleman character Herr Lipp did a very similar sketch with a frankfurter down his trousers, but I don't think it led to nudity, just innuendo and silliness. But comedy has changed in 15-20 years, what was seen as fun audience participation then isn't now.

Also I think Little Britain is reasonably removed from the children's books and David Walliams the Britain's Got Talent judge. Most kids who read the books won't know that a 15 year old sketch show even exists.

 

[Tim]

I remember that sketch. What's truly shocking is that I've just realised it predates the Jimmy Savile case.
I cant belive we were openly mocking some children's TV presenters for being a bit shady but at the time nothing had been done about it.

 

[Matgo]

I remember that sketch. What's truly shocking is that I've just realised it predates the Jimmy Savile case. I cant belive we were openly mocking some children's TV presenters for being a bit shady but at the time nothing had been done about it.

Yes, that skit didn't come out of nowhere. It was an open secret within the industry, and the reason we find it less funny now is because that secret has been exposed to the general public. The letter of complaint Walliams received was from a victim of molestation who argued that by making light of such an issue may give further licence to people that behave in that way. Nothing in the documentary suggested the letter had an effect on the sketch. In fact it was largely shrugged off.

Also I think Little Britain is reasonably removed from the children's books and David Walliams the Britain's Got Talent judge. Most kids who read the books won't know that a 15 year old sketch show even exists.

David Walliams the Britain's Got Talent judge whose main shtick appears to be a 'secret relationship' with Simon Cowell. Because the idea of them being a gay couple on the side is funny. "Tee hee, snigger etc".

And David Walliams the host who was booed on stage at the NTAs for making an unpleasant dig at Caroline Flack just two weeks before she went on to hang herself.

 

[jon81uk]

David Walliams the Britain's Got Talent judge whose main shtick appears to be a 'secret relationship' with Simon Cowell. Because the idea of them being a gay couple on the side is funny. "Tee hee, snigger etc".

And David Walliams the host who was booed on stage at the NTAs for making an unpleasant dig at Caroline Flack just two weeks before she went on to hang herself.

I mentioned that David Walliams has largely distanced himself from Little Britain and most people under 18 will know him for the books and TV appearances instead, not that he is a great person overall.

Personally (even as a day man) I don't really care about the camp over the top infatuation skit with Simon, I don't see it as a secret gay couple, just a weird infatuation done as an over-the-top comedy skit that isn't funny anyway.

and I am not defending him at all, but as an award ceremony host the writers would be just as much to blame for anything he said (yes he could refuse to read the script) and I think the same joke may have been read out by someone else.

 

[Plastic Person]

While I can't say I agree with everything @Matgo has been posting here recently, trust that BGT, Syco and all associated enterprises are soulless, defensive operations built on a foundation of talent exploitation and non-disclosure agreements. There may come a time that Alton Towers wouldn't want to be associated with Walliams, especially if more of this poor press arrives. It would be ironic to make such a botched job of a Roald Dahl adaptation, then fifteen years later, have the tide turn on a project based on his best-known imitator.

Anyway, please enjoy this photo of Simon Cowell's new face.

 

[Matgo]

While I can't say I agree with everything @Matgo has been posting here recently, trust that BGT, Syco and all associated enterprises are soulless, defensive operations built on a foundation of talent exploitation and non-disclosure agreements. There may come a time that Alton Towers wouldn't want to be associated with Walliams, especially if more of this poor press arrives. It would be ironic to make such a botched job of a Roald Dahl adaptation, then fifteen years later, have the tide turn on a project based on his best-known imitator.

Quite. We can argue till we're blue in the face about the rights and wrongs of each individual story which appears in the press, but the fact of the matter is that it's still bad press and it seems to have become a more problematic IP than Merlin anticipated.

 

[ChristmasPud]

It's part of the risk using other people's IP, your own product wins or fails on the success of somebody else's brand. Even if the actual ride is entertaining, that kinda becomes irrelevant, you can be just as entertaining without an IP. The reason for most IP deals is to buy into someone else's brand, at least for the way Merlin use IP.

So many IPs Merlin have used have been textbook failures or at least very short lived. Maybe some were intended to be short term attractions (Ice Age), but then we already know you can't just build a theme park's success on constant short term attractions. I think using IPs has to be done appropriately and moderately, which isn't the way Chessington or Alton have been using them recently.

 

[Britford]

Ironically, I feel this is their most reasonable use of IP in quite some time...
Like Charlie, Gangsta Granny seems relatively timeless and has that certain British charm that makes it fit in perfectly at AT.

 

[Alsty]

How do IPs actually work? Does the park pay for the privilege of using the brand, or does the brand pay the park for the publicity and exposure?

I always thought that the brand contributed to the budget of the attraction and that was why Merlin loved them, but now I'm not sure if that's right.

If Merlin have to pay a brand to use their name, wouldn't it be cheaper (and therefore, "the Merlin way") to use their own branding instead? If so, why are Merlin obsessed with IPs?

 

[Thameslink Rail]

How do IPs actually work? Does the park pay for the privilege of using the brand, or does the brand pay the park for the publicity and exposure?

I always thought that the brand contributed to the budget of the attraction and that was why Merlin loved them, but now I'm not sure if that's right.

If Merlin have to pay a brand to use their name, wouldn't it be cheaper (and therefore, "the Merlin way") to use their own branding instead? If so, why are Merlin obsessed with IPs?

Merlin pay the brand. Thanks to Cbeebies Land, your TV licence is ever so slightly cheaper.

 

[jon81uk]

How do IPs actually work? Does the park pay for the privilege of using the brand, or does the brand pay the park for the publicity and exposure?

I always thought that the brand contributed to the budget of the attraction and that was why Merlin loved them, but now I'm not sure if that's right.

If Merlin have to pay a brand to use their name, wouldn't it be cheaper (and therefore, "the Merlin way") to use their own branding instead? If so, why are Merlin obsessed with IPs?

Its not just Merlin though, think about how much money Drayton Manor put into Thomas Land over the years, or notice that Disney have recently re-done the Paradise Pier area of California Adventure to Pixar Pier. Many theme parks now are preferring known characters instead of original content.

Its basically "free" advertising as people are already familiar with the character and their story. Would you rather go to a music concert by Donna the singer, or Madonna the world-renowned artist? People go for the familar, known person/character and that makes the show/ride/attraction more marketable.

 

[AT86]

Using a known brand also means higher merchandise sales. If the target market already has an emotional connection to the brand they are more likely want to buy (or pester parents to buy) that CBeebies or Gruffalo stuffed toy etc.

 

[pluk]

How do IPs actually work? Does the park pay for the privilege of using the brand, or does the brand pay the park for the publicity and exposure?

I always thought that the brand contributed to the budget of the attraction and that was why Merlin loved them, but now I'm not sure if that's right.

If Merlin have to pay a brand to use their name, wouldn't it be cheaper (and therefore, "the Merlin way") to use their own branding instead? If so, why are Merlin obsessed with IPs?

It can go both ways. If it's an IP that'll draw people to the park then the park pay for licencing, if it's a brand looking for exposure the brand pay the park.

Some are obvious, like cbeebies being worth a huge amount to the park so they pay handsomely for it as opposed to Imperial Leather the ride which was a floating turd of an advert Cussons paid the park for.

Others are more boarder line. No idea whether it's true but I did hear Elmer at Chessington is considered mutually beneficial with Chessington not paying for the license nor recieving anything for using it.

 

[Tim]

As above except I wouldn't call a brand an IP, but a Sponsor. That's normally the give-away. If a ride has a sign saying "sponsored by ..." they'll have paid for the advertisement. Or if the name is slapped on top of the actual name, such as "Pepsi Max Big One"
An IP is almost always tied to the narrative of the ride.

 

[Themeparksandy1981]

As above except I wouldn't call a brand an IP, but a Sponsor. That's normally the give-away. If a ride has a sign saying "sponsored by ..." they'll have paid for the advertisement. Or if the name is slapped on top of the actual name, such as "Pepsi Max Big One"
An IP is almost always tied to the narrative of the ride.

For many years Shockwave was called the 7up Shockwave. Before IP it was all about ride sponsorship and at Disney it still is on selected rides.
IP’s except CBeebies land and hopefully this area really haven’t worked out well for the park over the years.