Talk:Big Train

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Memorable Sketches[edit]

The list of Memorable Sketches is all very impressive, but does it really belong in Wikipedia? Summarising the main running jokes seems okay, but listing fifty three of them, right down to the obscure one-offs, and taking up 90% of the article, all seems a bit much. --McGeddon 02:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading back through this list reminded me how much I enjoyed the series, but I agree - it doesn't really belong here. We should trim it down to 10 or so very funny ones that give the best representation of of the type of humour the series contained. - Gobeirne 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree - but which ten? Personally, (and I'd hate to make any changes without some form of consent/discussion) I'd go for:
  • A day in the life of Ming the Merciless
  • Distracting the boss with a paper bra-and-panties ensemble
  • Jesus sacking Satan
  • The two monks / scientists duping the other monk/scientist
  • George Martin getting kidnapped
  • The firefighting showjumpers
  • Foreign film - falling in love with traffic lights / garden hose
  • Frankenstein Kevin Rowland and/or Chairman Mao / Brian Ferry
  • Asking for directions / "I can't speak English, sorry."
  • The Bee Gees / Chaka Khan gunfight.
Those seem to me to be either the most well-known or the most representative of the show's type of humour (celebrities / fictional characters in unfamiliar contexts and everyday moments becoming quite surreal). --Joseph Q Publique 12:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments about the list being far far too long (it brought back some hilarious memories though!). I think the 10 listed above are good candidates, and should be used instead of the current massive list. But also, the starring competition joke should be mentioned, as it was a running joke which appeared a lot. Anyone have any objections? Keithmahoney 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine, although yes, stare-out should definitely be in there. And the Bee Gees, Kevin Rowland and Brian Ferry should maybe be brought together (along with Hall and Oates and Keith Emerson) as a general "70s/80s musicians in unlikely contexts" thing. --McGeddon 09:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I went ahead and stripped down the list. Felt kind of guilty about it, because it was such a great list! Just wasn't appropriate for wikipedia. I also condensed all of the 70s/80s musicians into one bullet point, making 9 in total, so I added another sketch to bring it back up to 10. I chose the "wanking in the office" sketch, because of the great photo to go with it. I didn't inlcude the "stare-out" sketch, as it is described in the section above. Keithmahoney 09:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few of those skits made me chuckle remembering them. I think their existence in the article is warranted as giving a glimpse of the show's style of humour. - Quirk 12:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always remembered the sketch where three employees confront their employer about not being paid, and he always manages to distract them - I think there were three sketches, with his escape being quicker each time (i.e. playback is faster). ??? 92.1.167.134 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Director[edit]

The series was directed by Graham Linehan. Only the pilot was directed by Chris Morris. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.14.36 (talkcontribs) .

Stareout[edit]

Was the show really famous for this sketch? This seems to be more of an opinion, I dont see a cite. It was an immense bore to myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.43.101 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regular cast members previously starred in Jam?[edit]

I don't understand how they could have previously starred in something that didn't start until March 2000. Removing this sentence. “Apart from Pegg, all of the first season regular cast members previously starred in Morris' sketch comedy Jam (2000).Rachel Pearce (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

No citations have been added to this new section which appears to consist of original research Mr Morden76 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This should be removed. It's more opinion than research, even.

89.100.252.142 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. I've cut it. --McGeddon (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]