Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 08:36:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Bah, Sigh: Nathan Barley - Series 2

Started by Neil, January 20, 2007, 10:04:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Neil

See, I just wish some of you fans could further the debate in a meaningful way.  

What you've done, Mr "No name given" is dragged things backwards.  You try to devalue my views by implying I'm 'saaad' to care.  That it's wrong to spend time thinking/writing about something.  Then you have to once again fall back on the "maybe you didn't get it?" cliche!

Why do so many defenders of Nathan Barley have to continually try and make out that those who didn't appreciate it simply didn't understand it?

I want to "nullify" that type of comment, because I see it as a piece of self-serving bullshit.  A way of side-stepping any kind of debate, and instead looking down at others in a sneery supercilious manner.  And that's really all you did in your post, your actual comment on the show was confined to a throway sentence right at the end of your ad hominem attack.

A Passing Turk Slipper

I don't even know who the above moron is talking about but I'll reply anyway.
Quote from: "No name given. Nada."Oh come on, did you really just spend all that time typing that out because you didn't like a TV show?
Boring. We are interested in comedy. We enjoy discussing comedy. A discussion is not always positive. The person, I'm assuming you mean Neil, 'spent all that time typing that out', (it's a post on a internet site, it's not long, you obviously haven't read many books) because discussing comedy, what is and isn't funny and why etc is interesting and enjoyable for them and others.

QuoteMaybe you weren't the target audience. Maybe Morris and Brooker wanted to go for a different audience to their normal ones. Testing themselves. Seeing if they can bridge that gap.

I like how you've decided to try and nullify the comment "Maybe you didn't get it" by calling it out in your own text. Great.

Well, maybe you didn't get it? Could be why you're so damn upset about it. You think you know Morris and Brooker better than they know themselves.

How do you define 'getting it' anyway? I mean, I understood what all the jokes were trying to be, I understood what others might have found funny about them but I just didn't think they were that great, and certainly nothing in comparison to the comedy I would like to see Morris producing (and that doesn't mean I want him to make another series of the Day Today). 'You didn't get it' is not an argument for why a show is good and it's a piss poor response to a long, well thought out essay.

QuoteThe show itself wasn't perfect but it was a damn good comment on today's society and the people in it.
It wasn't really though, I thought it had it's moments don't get me wrong but a 'damn good comment on today's society'? Were we watching the same show? It will be interesting to see what the second series is like, I'm not taking issue with the fact you liked it, I didn't hate it, it's just people like you add nothing to the discussion and aren't even bothered to take part in one.

rudi

Quoteit was a damn good comment on today's society and the people in it.

It's biggest fault was it wasn't today's society; it was about 3-5 years too late.

The Shoreditch Twat was making much the same jokes, only funnier, cheaper and actually in time to be relevant.

I didn't dislike NB anywhere near as much as some on here (although more than some others - we've been allowed our own opinions in the forum since march last year after a bloodless coup) and I'm a bit of a Brooker fan, but NB was a short of either of their best work.

QuoteYou think you know Morris and Brooker better than they know themselves.

And you clearly know Neil then.

To quote Milo:

QuoteWhat did it say about today's society and the people in it?

I'm fascinated to know.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

QuoteYes, there were average moments in the show, as there were in Brass Eye

Agh, that makes me wince. The one thing least likely to succeed in persuading me NB was good is criticizing Brass Eye to try and bring it down to the same level.

the midnight watch baboon

The guy who plays Nathan was on Soccer AM Saturday, didn't seem to know himself if there was to be a second series. I thought NB was ok, got better as the series progressed. What do people think off Nicholas Hoult's NB portrayal? Can't remember hearing much about that amidst much of the myriad slaggings of the show's other faults. Thought he was pretty good myself.

Milo

Nicholas Hoult? Do you mean Burns?

I think his performance was pretty standard but I had been expecting a character more like NB from Cunt off tvgohome so was a bit disappointed at him not being the complete cunt portrayed in that. He was too insecure.

Famous Mortimer the guest

The listings thing Brooker did in the first place (the fake TV listings for the show "Cunt", starring Barley) were a million times funnier than the show itself. They just hit the target better, I reckon, and the show was, as someone just said, a couple of years too late.

And also, it attacked such an easy target- pompous wannabe new-media people with their horribly expensive gadgets Daddy bought for them. Did they have a pedestal to be knocked off by well-placed satire any more? It's shooting fish in a barrel and both writers can do so much better.


Anonymous

Agree with your views on Gervais and Lucas and Williams.  I'm fed up with reading how groundbreakingly subtle, intelligent, realistic, painful, truthful, and funny Gervais is.  He is none of those things.  His shows are obvious, not true to life (thank God) and therefore not painful.  You can see exactly what he is trying to do with every joke and yes, I agree with you, it is often all of those things he thinks he isn't: sexist, homophobic, racist, and insulting to disabled people.  The reason is he brings these groups in to get cheap laughs.  If the comedy's no good then you are being insulting, it's a simple equation.  

Those were good days when Morris and Iannucci were at their best in the mid 1990s.  But, I think it is useless attaching personal hopes for a return of those times.  Morris will never produce that sort of stuff again because he won't have the energy now he is older.  I disagree with you on Jam.  I didn't find it depressing, and it is also something I can see him developing in the future.  Weird to see him in The IT Crowd.  Like someone from another planet.   I bet that show was a response to Gervais.  Gervais is just nasty, and I bet Linehan and Morris wanted to show that comedy can have kind of genuine warmth without being sickly sweet or horribly slick like My Family.  I bet the majoirty of viewers just thought it was strange though.

El Unicornio, mang

Only quite big tits? That's no good.

I enjoyed Nathan Barley the first time I saw it but it seemed worse and worse the more times I watched it. I still don't think it was a total disaster, but it was definitely way behind on the times. No idea what they could do for a second series.

Neil

Probably not a great idea to comment on the spam posts, as I delete them, and you just end up looking strange :-)  I'll have to try some more ways of getting rid of these bots, as I really want to keep guest posting open.

Anonymous

I think Richard Ayoade and the other guy he works with are quite distinctive.  They have their own obsessions and interests: horror, music, etc.

Godzilla Bankrolls

Quote from: "Anonymous"I think Richard Ayoade and the other guy he works with are quite distinctive.  They have their own obsessions and interests: horror, music, etc.

All done in Alan Partridge's voice.

Sykes was about a brother and sister. And far funnier than NB's attack on nothing in particular. Actually, I can't think of anything more to say about the series; I suppose there's the hope that Adamsdale (the bloke from Eastenders) can get Morris to pull his socks up, and that Brooker will be able to rise above the risible dialogue/plots/characters that he created for the first series.

However, there's very little chance that it will actually be any good. Only less bad.

renton

why does everyone slag off Holness and Ayode?
I loved Garth Marenghi (although dean learner presents was awful)
it makes me laugh consistently.

Frankxc

Hello!I enjoyed looking around Your web-site!Keep up this great resourse!With the best regards!
Frank

Anonymous

Quote from: "Norman"Also, I champion Morris / Brooker for writing a brother-sister relationship, a totally underexplored dynamic in comedy/drama, other than the sitcom 'Nearest And Dearest' or the film 'You Can Count On Me', I cannot think of many other examples of this.
Weren't Ross and Monica siblings in Friends?

Don't know if this has been mentioned elswhere but I reckon it would be pretty good if cookdandbombd featured in some way in Nathan Barley 2. Something like including some quotes from the NB discussion threads as lines in the show. Would that be good or stunningly crap? Who knows.

Perhaps that was the object all along and that's why we're seeing a second series? Y'know, make a crap first one, see the reaction online and factor that into the second?

hmm...probably bollocks...

Neil

No probably about it.

Quote from: "Anonymous"Weren't Ross and Monica siblings in Friends?

Yeah, the whole Geller family are excellent, particularly Elliott Gould as the Da.  He just makes it look effortless.

Quote from: "Neil"No probably about it.
Ouch! But then, we don't know, do we? In so far as 'feasability of it happening' bollocks rather than 'good idea/bad idea' bollocks. We'll have to wait and see...but I think it'd be A1 COOL! Don't you?

Quote from: "Neil"
Quote from: "Anonymous"Weren't Ross and Monica siblings in Friends?

Yeah, the whole Geller family are excellent, particularly Elliott Gould as the Da.  He just makes it look effortless.

I don't like him in Friends, I don't think he gets very good lines though. It's interesting that you say 'effortless' Neil, as I find his performance quite clunky and effortfull. I know a lot of people who agree with you though. I do think Schwimmer and Cox are good in their roles.

rudi

The only ep of Friends I've enjoyed is the one A&J did...

Quote from: "rudi"The only ep of Friends I've enjoyed is the one A&J did...
YouTube Link

Anonymous

I can't believe someone on a Morris fan site expresses a liking for Friends.  

As for Ayoade and Holness using Partridge's voice, it's very hard to find any telly presenter or comedian who doesn't do a Partridge as the default way to be funny and/or self-conscious about the medium of television (or that's how it was till fairly recently, things may be dying down a bit now).  If I hear another comedian say 'Not literally that would be hideous!' I think I'll give up hope of every seeing an original comedian again.

Neil

Quote from: "Anonymous"I can't believe someone on a Morris fan site expresses a liking for Friends.  

Why not?  

QuoteAs for Ayoade and Holness using Partridge's voice, it's very hard to find any telly presenter or comedian who doesn't do a Partridge as the default way to be funny and/or self-conscious about the medium of television (or that's how it was till fairly recently, things may be dying down a bit now).  If I hear another comedian say 'Not literally that would be hideous!' I think I'll give up hope of every seeing an original comedian again.

Yes, very much agreed.  Can't read that without visualising Simon Pegg saying the words.

Anonymous

I suppose I always though Friends was completely unfunny.  I thought people liked it because they were sad, lonely people who wanted to aspire to a particular lifestyle and that by laughing at the jokes of these people they thought they were almost becoming like them.  When a joke is made in Friends about Ross being nerdy or Matt le Blanc being greedy it leaves me cold because I don't believe these characters exist for a moment.

Neil

The aspirational argument gets used a lot with that show.  It's odd, really.  When they first started showing it over here, it was just obviously a good sitcom - certainly not up to the level of Seinfeld, no matter how much they stole.  But always obviously a funny show, which stood up very well to repeat viewings.  I did drift off when it got consumed by the Ross & Rachel nonsense, but got back into it again a few years ago when I got cable.  

Hmm.  So people supposedly don't like Nathan Barley because it's 'too close to home', but supposedly do like Friends because they want it to be close to home?  Odd how we try to rationalise opinions that differ from our own, eh?

slim

Quote from: "Anonymous"I thought people liked it because they were sad, lonely people who wanted to aspire to a particular lifestyle and that by laughing at the jokes of these people they thought they were almost becoming like them.
Gah.

As generalisations go, it's pretty harmless but yet it still gets my goat. Perhaps some people liked Friends because the series employed some talented writers who were, at the very least, competent in their efforts and because the actors were (in the main), at the very least, competent at delivering those efforts.

Where does this obsession with drawing sociocultural conclusions about the popularity of Friends come from? Did a snobby journalist put it forward and it just gained momentum?

Why can't it be as simple as a show combining comedy with feel-good soap guff and managing to please two types of audience?

Little Hoover

I thinks it's also just that it's unfashionable to like Friends in alternative circles, what with it being a mainstream sitcom featuring trendy beautiful people.
I'm not a huge fan of it but they can tell proper jokes when they want to, which is more than Nathan Barley did.

The ironic thing is Nathan Barley himself would watch a sitcom like Nathan Barley over Friends.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

E4 has a daily double-bill demonstrating just how much piss Friends delivers onto Nathan Barley.

The style of Friends is ultra-conventional but the first few series are full of examples of adventurous lines, interesting direction and above all decent comedy performances from people who have an idea of how this comic acting thing work.

Even ultra-conventional easy target Friends has startlingly odd moments like, 'I'm off to go and get a cat................Cat!'- that never fails to make me giggle.

It's always likely to get criticized by idiots who try to be cool above trying to appreciate what comedy is and why it works. Let alone actually enjoying the damn thing.

Anonymous

You're assuming I have decided not to like Friends (and perhaps that I secretly DO like it, but am trying to say I don't because I think it isn't cool to do so) based on reading a newspaper review.  As it happens I have not read a single newspaper review that is adequately critical of Friends.  All reviewers seem to like it.  I feel like asking them: 'Are you or are you not British?'  because I don't see how you can like this show and be British, it's jsut absurd.  My dislike of Friends is really quite basic:  I just don't like it, and generally I don't think about it, until people start ramming it down your throat and going on about how exemplarly and really quite original it is.  It's a cynical money making exercise, employing 20 writers to factory produce lines.  Perhaps the main problem is that American comedy relies on the wise crack, and British comedy has characters who are not really supposed to be cool in so obvious a way.  The British are reticent and it just doesn't fit.

I'm not a huge fan of Barley.  It's a curiosity piece, and is worth watching.  

I want to enjoy comedy and have fun.  Look at Adam and Joe.  They're great.  They had songs and puppet reenactments.  There was a sense of fun, but you're not trying to be aspirational when you watch the Adam and Joe show.  I'm not

thepuffpastryhangman

I've no doubt Friends possesses many if not all of the qualities described above, but I can't help thinking of this whenever I notice it's on:

Vyvyan: No! No! NO! We're not watching the bloody Friends! Bloody bloody bloody! I hate it! It's so bloody nice! Jennifer "Treacle" Aniston and David "Sugar-Flavored-Snot" Schwimmer! What do they do now?  Bloody  shampoo ads, that's what! They're just a couple of reactionary stereotypes, confirming the myth that everyone in America is a lovable, white, middle class uptown Manhatten apartment block dweller - and I - HATE - THEM!
[collapses on the couch, exhuasted]
Mike: That was a highly articulate outburst, Vyvyan. I only hope they're not watching.