I wonder how difference between TV show productions affects this. Broadcoast TV shows in America are expected to run 22 episodes a year. In the Thick of It has made about that many episodes over 7.5 years. I don't think you can get people to watch that much biting satire in such a small time period.
But I think in the end, American audiences want to see the good in people, especially the main characters. If not good, at least some humanity.
> But I think in the end, American audiences want to see the good in people, especially the main characters. If not good, at least some humanity.
Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, but when British people "take the piss" they're not trying to suggest someone is subhuman, it's more often than not just playing with the absurdity in everyday life. It's not done with malice in mind, we "take the piss" of ourselves as much as we do others.
It's partly a freedom thing too, you can slag off your mate to his face, and they'll do the same back to you, because you know you don't mean it. You really need to be comfortable with someone to do that though, wouldn't recommend it as an ice breaker. ;-)
I did once read a comment somewhere that said it's a British quirk to insult those you like while being friendly to those you dislike.
I could see how this might seem absurd to an outsider looking in. But, being English, it's definitely an observable idiosyncrasy for myself and my circle of friends.
I think that in the US this is primarily a male trait. Guys are supposed to make fun of their guy friends. But you'll never see girls doing the same to each other. The cool ones will do it to/with their guy friends.
Nah it just didn't work for what you were aiming at, going about insulting random people is just that. People reading have no idea if you guys are buds or not so it registers as a legit complaint about the parent's comment quality.
"But I think in the end, American audiences want to see the good in people, especially the main characters."
I used to work in TV series development. One of the ongoing legends in the TV development business is how every American TV exec loves Fawlty Towers, and even though everyone's tried to adapt it for American TV, none of their attempts has been successful. The reason being that American audiences need the protagonist to be "likable," and making the John Cleese character "likable" totally saps the comedic power of the show.
I suspect there's more to it than that. Fawlty Towers plays to some decidedly more British cultural issues surrounding class and social climbing. Also, it's really freaking hard to find someone who can fill Cleese's shoes. Nevertheless, the likability issue is a big one.
But Basil is totally likeable. He's very reasonable, but the world (and his wife) always conspires against him. His only real fault is his class consciousness, but show me a Brit without any of that.
House is smart, confident, funny, always right and always wins in the end (well almost) against the 'idiots' that surround him. Even when he seems to suffer setbacks they are always minor and he always twists the world to his will to get out of them. The destruction and pain he inflicts on the world never touch him.
I think a lot of people like House, not necessarily as someone they'd want to work with, but as someone they'd want to be like.
I think it's been mocked a bit in Community. One character was utterly fond of short British TV shows that would end abruptly after 6 episodes, while American shows would be milked seasons after seasons.
A good example of 'seeing the good in people' is the difference between The Office and its US version. The former is bleak and even the supposedly 'nice' characters are quite unpleasant in their own ways. In the US version, everyone's good at heart. Except Ryan.
But I think in the end, American audiences want to see the good in people, especially the main characters. If not good, at least some humanity.