Mininews

[Darrell]

Do you mean out-takes like "Steve Penks naughty bloopers" style stuff?

Nah, just excised footage.

Penks (as all bloopers shall now be called) would be welcome, though...

MORRIS: This week, the convicted Baxm-- oh shit... heh, I'll do that again and not cock it up this time.

(Front and Schneider giggling off camera)

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I don't view Morris is a genius, but I think The Day Today as a *body of work* is genius (or whatever hyperbolic word suits you). And it's the body of work that I want to see treated well on DVD. I'm not really interested in doing armchair-psychology on Morris-the-man, viewing him as an "artist" etc - I just think the show itself deserves respect, and part of that respect involves acknowledging the thrill of out-takes/making-of material. As Alan says, it's about appreciating the craft. If you're not interested, you don't click on the extras menu.

I once enraged someone on a film forum once by asserting that, sometimes, directors make the wrong decisions and cut stuff they should have left in. 'That is *so* insulting!' he spat 'You cannot dismiss the Auteur Theory!'

It just seems bizarre that some people are 'anti-extras' almost as a point of  principle, rather than because they think that including a specific extra may be misguided. Are you not excited that, by discarding this attitude, you may end up seeing something really funny? The hostage sketch from Jam, for example.

The Day Today was made as a 6x30m TV programme. But DVD is another medium entirely, and can offer so much more. Why restrict it?

[DuncanC]

Oh, and who actually calls something genius while really meaning "It's bloody great, but has some deep flaws."  No-one, that's never the subtext, the word is used in lieu of proper criticism.

But that's different. Yeah, calling something a work of genius would imply near-perfection. But calling a person a genius just means they're capable of works of genius, not that everything they ever do ever is. Many people considered geniuses because of some of their work produced utter shite later on.

Bringing up Brooker again. It seems to me it's possible he's capable of much more than TVGH would superficially suggest. I mean, nothing about for example David Cross's other work would suggest he's capable of Mr Show - standup that isn't amazing and a role in some shitty sitcoms and Scary Movie 2. I know, I know, very different situations, but I'd still give more credit to CM in being capable of judging who to work with.

[thatmuch]

I don't view Morris is a genius, but I think The Day Today as a *body of work* is genius (or whatever hyperbolic word suits you).

I agree - the only worthwhile use of the word 'genius' is to describe the work, not the aurhor. Otherwise you get into horrible personality cults and an obsession with the person who produced the thing rather than the thing itself.

It just seems bizarre that some people are 'anti-extras' almost as a point of  principle, rather than because they think that including a specific extra may be misguided. Are you not excited that, by discarding this attitude, you may end up seeing something really funny? The hostage sketch from Jam, for example.

I agree that being aginst extras as a point of principle would be silly, but I prefer to leave that to the judgement of the producer, whoever that may be - Morris, John Cleese, Harold Pinter, Rob Brydon or whoever. Personally I don't want to watch the second disc of 'Human Remains', where they show how the improvisations were constructed, because I think it would undermine my appreciation of the programmes themselves, but that's up to me.

The Day Today, Jam etc. were done for a specific time and I can very well understand someone wanting to just leave them be. A lot of artists and novelists and filmmakers think like that, and I think it's something most people can understand.

The Day Today was made as a 6x30m TV programme. But DVD is another medium entirely, and can offer so much more. Why restrict it?

Yes, but OTOH why should one feel obliged to fill it to the max with stuff just because it's possible to do so? For instance the idea of any kind of covebtional 'commentaries' on TDT seems to me completely out of sync with the spirit of the programme. If Morris and Iannuci decide to to do some kind of fucked-up twisted  annotation then that might be fun. Hard to imagine though. If the level of humour is anything like that on Smokehammer I don't want to hear it.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

The Day Today, Jam etc. were done for a specific time and I can very well understand someone wanting to just leave them be.

I think the fact that TV shows and films are frozen in time like this means (a) any attempt to do 'new funny stuff' in the same vein is a bad idea, because the moment has gone, it'd be like the Sex Pistols reuniuon or Carry On Columbus, and (b) they lend themselves to straight analysis by the creators in a way that they didn't back then. Morris and Iannucci discussing TDT at length back in '94 would have looked egotistical and horrid (much like the Human Remains disc), but ten years on it's fine.

So that's my reasoning behind preferring a straight commentary to an in-character one.

[Neil]

But that's different. Yeah, calling something a work of genius would imply near-perfection. But calling a person a genius just means they're capable of works of genius, not that everything they ever do ever is. Many people considered geniuses because of some of their work produced utter shite later on.

And, again, I would argue that that's not what the majority of people really mean when they say, "This guy's a genius!!"  It's more likely to be accompanied by the term "god-like" than "flawed."  

Bringing up Brooker again.

And why not?  Hey, guess what phrase he used to accompany his link to Grebes on his old Superkaylo site?  I'll give you a clue, it's two words and the first one is "god-like."  (I'm not generally a fan of holding up things people have said or written years ago as some kind of proof, but it does seem to pertain to this dicussion.)

It seems to me it's possible he's capable of much more than TVGH would superficially suggest. I mean, nothing about for example David Cross's other work would suggest he's capable of Mr Show - standup that isn't amazing

Um, stand-up which is particularly yank-centric and so pretty difficult for us to get into or fully appreciate.  "Shut Up, You Fucking Baby!" gets an extremely positive review on the generally reliable AllMusic.com :  "Then, David Cross — best known as the "David" of the brilliant Mr. Show With Bob & David, the greatest sketch comedy show in history — did a whirlwind tour of rock clubs in the spring of 2002, releasing highlights from the tour (culled mainly from Portland and Atlanta dates) as the Shut Up, You Fucking Baby! album on Sub Pop that fall. It would be hyperbole to say that it revitalizes the genre — one album can't do that, and it's doubtful that anybody else would be given the freedom Cross was accorded here — but it is no stretch to say that it's one of the greatest albums in recorded comedy history. "

and a role in some shitty sitcoms and Scary Movie 2. I know, I know, very different situations, but I'd still give more credit to CM in being capable of judging who to work with.

I can't get IMDB to work at the moment so the only sitcom work I know of David Cross' is Arrested Development, by no means a "shitty sitcom" by any stretch of the imagination!   He also wrote The Ben Stiller Show prior to Mr Show, which is another very highly-regarded comedy show.  Hardly compares to writing some internet stuff and flogging it to Loaded or working on the 11oCS.

This is all by the by anyway, my point was the fact that Morris has chosen to work with at least two people who wear their Morris fandom on their sleeves.  Doesn't that worry anyone else?

[butnut]

This is all by the by anyway, my point was the fact that Morris has chosen to work with at least two people who wear their Morris fandom on their sleeves.  Doesn't that worry anyone else?

Yes it does worry me. It also seems a shame that he doesn't seem to work with Baynham any more, as I always thought they worked brilliantly as a writing partnership. Does any know if they had a big bust-up, or they just drifted apart?

On the other hand, if this was 1975, we'd all be moaning about this terrible sounding sitcom that Cleese was writing with his Mrs. - about a hotel...

[Huzzie]

"It threw my heart and head in bed together and so few things ever do that"  Those are all genuine irony-free quotes.  

It wasnt irony free!!!!!!


Ohh alright, it was a bit but i purposely said it in a stupid way!!:-P


Die quote, DIE!!!

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I do, however, think clamouring for everything and the kitchen sink to be released on DVD is an example of excessive fan-ish behaviour.

I'd argue we need more of this attitude, though, not less. It always depresses me when brilliant shows get rubbish DVDs (eg, The Young Ones) simply because there isn't a proper fanbase prepared to fight for stuff to be included. The last thing we need is one big collective sigh of 'Ah well, *I'm* happy'.

[12 Storey Crisis]

Personally I'll be getting the Day Today DVD no matter what, but I would just say that certain artists do just like to let the finished work speak for itself, and tend to view any unused footage as being essentially surplus to requirements.
I remember Leon Vitali (Stanely Kubrick's assistant of many years) telling one interviewer that Kubrick once ordered him to compile all of the outtakes from his films and burn them, because he felt that they were 100% extraneous to the final product.

His attitude seemed to be that if they weren't worthy of inclusion the first time round, they were unlikely to be so in the future. I'm not saying that this is the right approach or the wrong approach, but it is the way some people tend to feel about these things.

[wheatgod]

Personally I'll be getting the Day Today DVD no matter what, but I would just say that certain artists do just like to let the finished work speak for itself, and tend to view any unused footage as being essentially surplus to requirements.
I remember Leon Vitali (Stanely Kubrick's assistant of many years) telling one interviewer that Kubrick once ordered him to compile all of the outtakes from his films and burn them, because he felt that they were 100% extraneous to the final product.

His attitude seemed to be that if they weren't worthy of inclusion the first time round, they were unlikely to be so in the future. I'm not saying that this is the right approach or the wrong approach, but it is the way some people tend to feel about these things.

but i dont expect kubrick wouldve said the same thing if the out-takes had been forced upon him by studio bosses desperate to keep a film short or save the studio's blushes due to controversy

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

This from Zeta Minor (http://www.zetaminor.com/dvd/incoming.htm):


The Day Today; BBC Worldwide; £15.99
Extras: Audio commentary with Chris Morris and Armando Ianucci; Stills gallery; Steve Coogan/Mark Radcliffe interview providing insight into making of the show; Biographies; Pilot episode; 6 mini news features; Behind the Scenes from an Open University programme; Extra contributions from Collaterlie Sisters, Brian O'Hanraha'hanrahan, Christopher Morris,Valerie Sinatra and Alan Partridge; 2 extended scenes: The Day Today DVD Extra [Possibly The Pool] (13m54s) and The Office Jouney Through Hell (13m39s). The latter two cleared by the BBFC.

They don't quote the source though - probably just cobbled together from various forums. Not sure where the 'Extra contributions from' thing comes from, although note the various typos and take the necessary amount of salt as required.

Do we think the pilot will feature in its entirity? What with Tandy's 'Those guests were alreday used in the show' justifications for cutting the KMKYWAP pilot. Will Morris agree to those links of himself being included? And what about the two bursts of supplementary material which were tagged onto the end of the tape but are not part of the pilot-proper?

[Purple Tentacle]

Extras: Audio commentary with Chris Morris and Armando Ianucci.......Extra contributions from Collaterlie Sisters, Brian O'Hanraha'hanrahan, Christopher Morris,Valerie Sinatra and Alan Partridge


Do we think the pilot will feature in its entirity? What with Tandy's 'Those guests were alreday used in the show' justifications for cutting the KMKYWAP pilot?

With a salty tongue this has made me quite hopeful... are the "in-character" contributions seperate from the audio commentary? That would be nice.
(I wonder if Lee and Herring are still pissed off about PETER O'Hanrahanrahan)


However I recall that Tandy's justification for cutting the pilot was space issues on the second KWKYWAP disc, which seemed fair enough to me, better to have a good quality picture than superfluous extras. (Which is why I hate digital telly so much.....)

[Darrell]

I think that Roobarb thing is a scissors-and-paste job from the rumours and so forth. Though if the commentary is a production one and it's the new sketches only which are in-character then I'm all for it.

But why "Brian"? And why Valerie Sinatra instead of Rosie May?

[alan strang]

But why "Brian"?

It was "Patrick" in the Select promo piece. I'm sure some press releases had the name as 'Brian' too, probably by mistake.

I'm also vaguely cynical about the 'complete' pilot being used. For a start there'll be the usual PRS worries - eg the 'Love Me Tender' sequence will have to be edited a second time.

But will they really consider the undubbed 'Chester Johnson' sequence worthy of inclusion? And will they allow for so much duplication of material twixt the series, the pilot and the Mininews?

I hope they do obviously, but...

[Neil]

Right, remember the nice anonymous man who sent us all the info for the Brass Eye DVD?  Well he's back and will be sending us full details of the extras hopefully sometime this week.  

This is the cover the PR people have sent out to him today, he says that if it's not the final cover it will probably not be far off.  

I had a quick look through this thread and this seems to be different to the one that was being duscussed before, which was just plain black.

[Frinky]

Pointless comment, I guess, but that's really, really good, fantastic, much better than the early dreaded mockups that I'd seen.

[butnut]

Oh yes - I like it. Surprisingly dark. Now where's Darrell with his DVD cover anal-ysis?

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

Reasonable. And the news 15 sticker certainly checks out. It's not really collective enough though, and it still looks like a potatoshop job.

[Neil]

You really are a contrary little prick.  It's an excellent cover, certainly the best one we've seen so far. Just look at that logo!

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

I think it looks brilliant, especially the picture of Morris in the shadow below. And the lack of any Partridge mention is good.

[european son]

You really are a contrary little prick.  It's an excellent cover, certainly the best one we've seen so far. Just look at that logo!

i think its fucking great, but have to disagree with you... i think Rats's was tits.

[fbb bastard]

thats the bugger.....streamlined,uncluttered,classy........and a nice enigmatic pic of the main man too.......GOALLLLL!!!!!!

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

[Neil]You really are a contrary little prick. It's an excellent cover, certainly the best one we've seen so far. Just look at that logo![/Neil]

Do shut up. Just what have I contradicted?

Yeah-it's ok. But it's nothing like the actual show. The nearest I can see to that TDT logo on the actual show is the sign behind Jacques-Jacques Liverot, and that shady promotional shot of CM still doesn't really give anyone a good indication of what it's about.

I preferred that plain one a few pages back. If you can't show people what the DVD is about on the front then don't bother like they did. That one seems neither here nor there style-wise.

Give me that logo on a black cardboard sleeve to cover the DVD case, and I'll shut up.

[butnut]

Yeah-it's ok. But it's nothing like the actual show.

How can a cover be like the actual show? Until we have covers that show moving clips of whatever's inside, they can only be a way of attracting attention to the DVD.

I like this one, but I also liked the big black on (please resist). As long as it's simple and uncluttered as someone up there^^^ wrote, it's ok with me.

[Simon Price]

Incidentally, I managed to download all the Mininews yesterday on Soulseek. They seem to have originated from SOTCAA.

[alan strang]

They seem to have originated from SOTCAA.

Nah - BBC2 surely?

Were they the pissy little Real files from years ago or the better-quality DivXs? Can't remember if they ever got shared.

That new cover's okay. Still nice and serious at any rate. I wonder if they could overlay the Morris picture like the photo of Andy Warhol on the front of 'Songs For Drella' by Lou Reed and John Cale - so you can only see it by holding it at a certain angle against the light.

The back cover should feature David Schneider with his cock out.

[Rev]

Ooh, no, I don't like that cover at all.  Nice as the logo is, the rest of it seems far too sinister.  It's not Jam, it's your friendly inhuman news service with ropey undercurrents.

[Simon Price]

They seem to have originated from SOTCAA.

Nah - BBC2 surely?

Arf arf

Were they the pissy little Real files from years ago or the better-quality DivXs? Can't remember if they ever got shared.

They're pretty poor quality, that's for sure. And they have SOTCAA stamped over the bottom-left corner. But it's nice to see them again, anyway.

[Papercut]

That cover is utter class, love the tweaked logo (which suggests to me this must be a near-final version).

Can't wait for the extras details.