Talk:That Mitchell and Webb Look

See Also

Someone added Armstrong and Miller to this section. It was deleted and I reverted the delete because there seemed to be enough connectors to make it valid. Someone has deleted the entry again (And I've reverted with explanation). It would be good to get further opinions as to whether or not the entry is reasonable. (Connectors: Contemporaneous, BBC, alternative comedy, based on two named performers). PRL42 (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the only connection is that 1) The two crossed-over for Comic Relief (M/W in a pilots sketch and A/M in a Digbey Chicken Ceaser one) and 2) Mitchell (at least) has written sketches for Armstrong and Miller in the past. So, yeah, I'd there is probably some connection. Gran² 13:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's clearly no justification for having this linked from this page. Being a "Contemporaneous BBC alternative comedy based on two named performers" just doesn't cut it. It's a completely unrelated show. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note the section above which was started to discuss this topic. If you can get a concensus for removal here then the entry can be deleted. PRL42 (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed. Stewartdc8 (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see why it's there either. Foomandoonian (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Above I was really just outlining the connection, not really supporting it being there. See also sections have always been pointless in my eyes. The Comic Relief cross-over should be mentioned in the article somewhere. That's it. Gran² 11:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly attached to the section. I just feel that if something is not inaccurate and has been around for some months, a consensus to delete should be obtained before removal. I'd agree with Gran2 that 'See Also' sections are redundant as any linkage should have been indicated elsewhere in an article where it's relevance can be shown. PRL42 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be it's not needed so away it goes. PRL42 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Redudancy?

Outlandishly Rude Worker: A series of skits involving people who should be working in a field that would dictate courteous behavior on their parts, but instead act quite the opposite. For example, a priest who berates a yuppy couple, and a waiter who abuses his customer's intellectually until they are forced to leave.

And...

The Honeymoon's Over: Mitchell plays a rude, mean, condescending, and posh man who takes a variety of different jobs, in all of which he does his best to demean his customers (Webb and Colman) and make them feel uncomfortable and inferior. When Webb and Colman ask about the nice people they had seen in a previous visit (often "that friendly Australian girl with the colourful jumper"), Mitchell replies "She/he's gone, sir. They've all gone, and we're back!" Jobs have included being a vicar, a waiter, and a menswear shop assistant.

aren't these exactly the same thing? 71.243.253.201 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, feel free to remove the inferior one. Gran² 16:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The new version doesn't even describe the sketches all that well. I thought it might refer to the "They've gone - and we're back" sketches but I couldn't be sure - even though I couldn't specifically remember anything similar. PRL42 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Extended episodes?

Are there two different versions like Qi, where there's an edited down and an extended episode. Just watched an episode on TV, and it had sketches I hadn't seen before, but alongside ones I know I have.121.73.221.187 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Intro made by Aardman Animation

Saw it mentioned in the S3E6 commentary. Is it at all worth mentioning? How would one cite the source? Plourples (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)