Now then. Mark:
You say that the Carry on films are "childish drivel from a bygone age" - (and that wasn't an opinion but a realisation!), "bygone age" being defined very helpfully as "an age gone by".
Firstly, you profess to liking the Marx Brothers, who made films in the 1930s and radio shows in the 1940s - an age gone by. Therefore, the "bygone age" part of your argument is irrelevant, so why include it? Unless you're saying that the 1960s and 70s, the age in which the Carry On films were made, are an age in which nothing of value was produced, whereas the 1930s and 40s were an age in which the things that were produced were good. But then you say that you don't like Will Hay, who was making films around the same time as the Marx Brothers. If your taste in comedy is determined by the age in which it was made, how do you account for that? I put it to you that your "bygone age" argument is a red herring!
Secondly, you say that the Carry On films are childish and "schoolboy humour". Now, if the writer, producer, director and actors, along with the many people who enjoy watching them, were schoolboys you might have got an argument there. However, the people who wrote, produced, directed and starred in the films were all intelligent mature sophisticated adults, as were some of the people who watched them. So I'm afraid that argument falls down as well.
Thirdly, "drivel".
Defined as "Stupid or senseless talk".
The humour in the films is not meaningless, otherwise there couldn't be any jokes, because jokes depend upon meaning.
I rest my case m'lud.
RegarRAB
ThinBoy