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, 05:17:38 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Nathan Barley Series Two

Started by jutl, June 30, 2005, 12:20:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mr. Analytical

But as demonstrated by any dictionnary, the language game that informs my use of the word 'hero' above is widespread, common and recognised.

Your grounds for saying that my ideolect is corrupt whereas yours isn't are ultimately arbitrary rather than grounded in a solid understanding of how language works even if looked at through the admittedly flawed lens of Wittgensteinian  semantics.

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Quote from: "23 Daves"

A large part of the problem with most of you, I feel, is that you've never liked Charlie Brooker's humour, finding it too caustic, bitter and young fogey-ish.

No, my problem with Brooker's writing (including TVGH and his Guardian TV reviews) is that it's *sold* as savage and angry and full of spleen-venting etc, but it's actually just full of the same cuddly whimsy as the average Noel Fielding routine. How can you take a TV-attacker seriously if he (a) works for Bazalgette and (b)  writes cosy dissections of the Big Brother household every year? The latter involves him attacking the housemates, you'll notice, but *never* the producers or those who defend the show.

The Mumbler

Also, a lot of the Brooker oeuvre is perceived to be providing a public service - in the words of Graham Linehan, "He watches all this bad TV so you don't have to".  Hogwash.  It's only one form of bad TV - I've never seen him review a comedy show, or a proper drama or a really thought-provoking documentary.  Not once.  I do see him reviewing a lot of fluff, though, a lot of reality TV shit, and the odd tabloidy documentary on Channel 5 or Sky One for which Charlie can say something like "It's like The Day Today but for real".  Ultimately, he's no different to Garry Bushell, and about as relevant.

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Brooker's column from last week's Guardian:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's face it, dogs are shit aren't they? Filthy, barking, mewling, puking, septicaemia-provoking, flea-chauffeuring, hairy (Get on with it - Ed) twunt donkeys of the worst kind. You know that, we all know that.

Which is why Some Programme About Dogs (Sky 446) made me want to squish my eyeballs out with a rusty potato masher covered in Nicky Campbell's man-juice rather than continue watching the preview tape. It's presented by a bug-eyed, trousers-wearing tosser-droid called Colin, whose face looks like it's gone on holiday and left a very ugly, cancer-ridden squirrel in its place. Watching this, I honestly felt like Western civilisation is doomed.

I'd advise you to eschew the above jerk circus for A Comedy Show Featuring People I Hope To Work With At Some Point (BBC2). At last, a comedy show which is not only about something but treats its viewers with intelligence. And it doesn't feature any dogs.

Grrrr.

The Mumbler

In case you think this is empty abuse, here - and I'm not making any of these up - is what Brooker's reviewed in Screenburn so far this year:

29 January 2005
How To Sleep Better
24

5 February 2005
Kilroy: Behind The Tan
Huff
24

12 February 2005
The Apprentice
Michael Howard: No More Mr. Nasty

19 February 2005
Look Around You [which gets about 20 words, but enough to ingratiate himself with Popper and Serafinowicz, just in case it hasn't already happened...]
The Apprentice

26 February 2005
Ten Years Younger
Torture: The Guantanamo Way

5 March 2005
Michael Jackson trial reconstructions

12 March 2005
Supervolcano
Milkshake! [Channel 5's childrens programming]

19 March 2005
Crossing Over With John Edward
6ixth Sense
Most Haunted

26 March 2005
Dog The Bounty Hunter
The Queen's Castle

2 April 2005
Babestation
Psychic Interactive

9 April 2005
The O'Reilly Factor
The Apprentice
Doctor Who ["I think it may be the single best piece of family-oriented entertainment BBC has broadcast in its entire history" – although he made sure he waited until everyone else had cast their vote on that one...]


23 April 2005
[By Michael Holden]
Dark Side of Porn

30 April 2005
[By Michael Holden]
Bad Behaviour
House of Tiny Tearaways

7 May 2005
The Monastery
Bring Back: Grange Hill

14 May 2005
Crimewatch UK
The People's Court UK
The Thick Of It ["a fantastic new comedy series from Armando Iannucci".  Is that OK, Chris?]


21 May 2005
virtual greyhound racing, virtual roulette etc.

28 May 2005
Celebrity Love Island

4 June 2005
Big Brother

11 June 2005
Big Brother
Doctor Who

18 June 2005
The New Variety Show [SoundTV – a televised entertainment from a cruise]
Tommy's Ark [SoundTV – "it's like Alan Partridge!"]

25 June 2005
Pimp My Ride UK [MTV]
Big Brother

Doesn't take long for a pattern to emerge, does it?

slim

If that's his remit, what's the problem? I always thought his brief at The Guide was to help the middle classes sneer at the proles. Or does he have complete creative freedom in his writing?

He has a tiny column (fnar) and a once weekly slot to review (mostly) crap TV, which I got the impression was the point of his role. I really don't see what you're rallying against; there are other TV reviewers reviewing other things, including yourselves. Does CB have to tackle your favoured topics in order for you to be happy with him?

Jon_Norton

Quote from: "slim"I always thought his brief at The Guide was to help the middle classes sneer at the proles.

My impression of The Guardian was that all members of staff are expected to take up that duty, rather than anyone in particular being assigned to it.

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Quote from: "slim"Does CB have to tackle your favoured topics in order for you to be happy with him?

No, but if he's styled as 'angry' then it'd be good if he went for better (more relevant) targets.

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Quote from: "slim"there are other TV reviewers reviewing other things

Lots of people copying stuff off press releases and being gushing/condemning about the same shows, more like. I thought CB was supposed to be the antithesis to that?

slim

Quote from: "Emergency Lalla Ward Ten"No, but if he's styled as 'angry' then it'd be good if he went for better (more relevant) targets.
Sorry, but what do you mean by relevant? More relevant to you? How about relevant to the majority of Guardian readers who don't have anywhere near the level of insight about comedy and the media that you do?

To be honest, I like Screenburn occasionally on a Saturday morning. If I want to read something cutting about the industry or an in-depth pick-to-pieces of a comedy show, I'll read SOTCAA. I can see your problem with the Big Brother arse-kissing, given his corporate links to them, but the scope of his column is a pretty poor reason for attacking someone or their writing.

Quote from: "Emergency Lalla Ward Ten"I thought CB was supposed to be the antithesis to that?
Said who? When? Perhaps I've not been reading the right press releases, but I've never read that nor been led to believe it.

Jon_Norton

Quote from: "slim"
Quote from: "Emergency Lalla Ward Ten"I thought CB was supposed to be the antithesis to that?
Said who? When?

His book

Quote from: "Some hack"Cruel, acerbic, impassioned, gleeful, frequently outrageous and always hilarious, Charlie Brooker's Screen Burn collects the best of the much-loved Guardian Guide columns in one easy-to-read-on-the-toilet package. Sit back and roar as Brooker rips mercilessly into Simon Cowell, Big Brother, Trinny and Susannah, Casualty, Davina McCall, Michael Parkinson...and almost everything else on television. This book will make practically anyone laugh out loud.


"almost everything else on television" settles the "relevance" issue, as he ought to be dealing with most stuff, allegedly.

Jon_Norton

The last word on "angry TV reviewing" was said by Harlan Ellison in his Glass Teat. Which is genuinely impassioned and subversive, which is how it transcends the datedness of the targets and some of Ellison's own 60s opinions.

Of course, he had Vietnam and the My Lai massacre to write about, and US TV news coverage. Nothing like that now going on, eh?

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Quote from: "slim"
Sorry, but what do you mean by relevant?

Shows which actually have an influence on the way TV evolves, or shows which get lots of ill-informed/misplaced puff elsewhere in the media. Attacking obscure satellite shows or daytime programmes (which neither Brooker nor his readers would normally watch) just seems like beating up puppies to me. Or starting a thread on C&B about how much you hate Jim Davidson. What's the point?

And he *is* styled as an angry young man. It's obvious in the tone of his writing. And whenever people defend/stick up for him, they do often talk about him being vitriolic, bitter, howling at the moon, etc.

The Mumbler

Quote from: "slim"the scope of his column is a pretty poor reason for attacking someone or their writing.
quote]

Is it?  If he's setting out to show why a lot of television is rubbish (and why else is it called Screenburn?), then he's extremely selective in his targets.  *Everyone* thinks that Celebrity Love Island's bollocks.  *Everyone* thinks Doctor Who is "must-see TV".  He's about as dangerous a presence in TV reviewing as the pundit in the local paper.   Fuck him.

Jon_Norton

The issue is that we are being told he is Frank Zappa and he's actually Richard Stilgoe.

slim

I can't check out that link at the moment as Amazon is one of the many sites affected by some stupid error at my ISP's end over the past week. Pft.

So, seeing as I can't see for myself, did he say that about his book or was it someone else?

I really still can't see your point about relevance - you still mean more relevant to you, surely? How do you know what Brooker and his readers watch? Why should he be attacking shows that influence the way TV evolves? I still don't see how that's his job... does this accusation apply equally to all TV reviewers? Should everyone be attacking the big players?

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Quote from: "slim"Should everyone be attacking the big players?

You'd think some people would.

The Mumbler

Well, I never see him really reviewing news coverage, or proper grown-up drama, or challenging documentaries, or arts programming, or comedy that doesn't directly involve some of his showbiz mates.   Or are you saying that such areas don't count?

Every now and again, I hear friends and acquaintances saying about what a "clever, vital" critic Brooker is.  And you know what?  They're the people I know who (by their own admission) watch the least television.

slim

Your site has demonstrated that your good self and others are capable of doing it - why aren't you? Is it because 'papers don't hire people who genuinely rock the boat? Or because you haven't tried?

I see what you're getting at, but I can't see it being fair that you've landed all this responsibility on CB.

Jon_Norton

Quote from: "slim"So, seeing as I can't see for myself, did he say that about his book or was it someone else?

I quoted what the Amazon blurb says. There are 9 gushing reviews from punters saying that CB is the fackin' maan.

slim

Quote from: "The Mumbler"Or are you saying that such areas don't count?
Come on, you know that's not what I'm saying.

Quote from: "The Mumbler"Every now and again, I hear friends and acquaintances saying about what a "clever, vital" critic Brooker is.  And you know what?  They're the people I know who (by their own admission) watch the least television.
Heh, well then tackle them about it - I'm not saying that.

slim

Quote from: "Jon_Norton"I quoted what the Amazon blurb says.
So the Amazon blurb writers now set the remit for CB's column, rather than his boss?

Jon_Norton

Quote from: "slim"I see what you're getting at, but I can't see it being fair that you've landed all this responsibility on CB.

No, you see, this is the same old thing again. I haven't "landed the responsibility" on Charlie, same as I didn't insist Chris Morris had to make a brilliantly incisive social satire of modern mores that would be recalled as a work of genius forever after.

What happened was that Charlie has this job as a TV critic, and he gets described as though he were the most fearless journalistic voice ever. And so the problem is that he isn't. Equally, Nathan Barley is put forward as a comedy series on C4, and its failure to be any good is an issue.

If Charlie and Chris want to write a book about Irish landscape painting, or open a flower shop, I'll judge those ventures on how far they achieve the relevant goal as well. I'm not demanding those 2 have to do it. Just do it well, if they do it at all.

The Mumbler

Quote from: "slim"
Quote from: "The Mumbler"Or are you saying that such areas don't count?
Come on, you know that's not what I'm saying.

Quote from: "The Mumbler"Every now and again, I hear friends and acquaintances saying about what a "clever, vital" critic Brooker is.  And you know what?  They're the people I know who (by their own admission) watch the least television.
Heh, well then tackle them about it - I'm not saying that.

But that *is* what a lot of his "defenders" say - that he writes angry, subversive copy.  It isn't.  It's adolescent, narrow and his targets, like those of Ian Hyland or Garry Bushell, are the same targets as in the tabloids.  And he's no different to Hyland and Bushell - merely picking over the same scabs.  The targets aren't really the professionals at all - they're the public who end up on reality shows or who are here-today, gone-tomorrow.  He's another one who can't really deal with grown-up arguing, so he piles all of his hatred on to show-offs on Big Brother.  What's the point of that?  How is that attacking television?

Jon_Norton

Quote from: "slim"
Quote from: "Jon_Norton"I quoted what the Amazon blurb says.
So the Amazon blurb writers now set the remit for CB's column, rather than his boss?

Since the blurbs are usually copied off the books themselves, don't you think it's reasonable to take that quote as representing his public profile?

Godzilla Bankrolls

QuoteTo buy it isn't just to read some extremely sharp and extremely amusing observations about television (I was in stitches at one description of Jim Davidson), but to be forced to take a step back and look at society, feeling Brooker's pain as he attempts to hold on to his sanity and intelligence in an insane world of bleating, porcelain drones.

Good grief! And there I was, thinking that Brooker was just another Jim Shelley whose been allowed to fully indulge his Love For Morris, and swear a bit.

I think it was when my mate got the TVGoHome book for Christmas a few years back that we (my mate and I) realised that Brooker's work was no better than stuff we come up with to amuse ourselves. Sigh.

The Mumbler

Ah yes, Jim Shelley.  A man who was able to switch from The Guardian to the Mirror and who barely had to change his writing style one iota.  

Brooker: give him two years and he'll be at The Sun.

TJ

Quote from: "Paaaaul"I was including OK, because I would imagine those that thought it was OK would be interested in a second series (although I imagine that ELW10, Jon Norton and the other neighsayers who over-analysed every second of the series while calling it appalling would probably be more excited by the chance of more cannon-fodder).

'OK' is the median option, so realistically speaking, statistically it doesn't belong with either direction.

QuoteWhy do you believe that the poll was rigged? Do you believe that Richard Ayaode has signed up to CaB with multiple accounts?

No, although he has done that in the past so I wouldn't put it past him. But there were several 'new' accounts set up by people with C4/Talkback/Zeppotron etc addresses. And the insider who sent an email to everyone in their address book boasting about how they'd got one over on those CaB tossers who don't like Nathan Barley, one of the recipients of which passed it on to me. And someone on another forum asking people to come here and vote positively in the polls. And there's still a big question mark over the large amount of new members that joined during NB anyway - most of them never posted but were only too quick to vote. Hard to quantify, but it still gives some cause for suspicion.

TJ

Quote from: "Paaaaul"I do think that those on this board who tend to make themselves most heard on the subject, are those who disliked it, yourself included

I don't really see what's wrong with that. 23 Daves aside, those holding the opposing view have hardly been vocal about it, so if the other side is dominating then it's pretty much down to their radio silence.

Quotewhich is why I initiated that poll, because most people I talked to about NB didn't hate it

That's just your experience though - I have to be honest and say that most people I spoke to hated it. And that's not just 'comedy obsessives' - the list also includes friends, family and work colleagues. I know two people who loved it, but possibly because they were discussing it in a real conversation, they actually gave proper reasons instead of "I thought this was the Chris Morris site, not the Daily Mail site!" etc (NB this is not aimed at you personally).

Quoteand I thought the weekly threads were not doing justice to how the board actually felt

I think they were, to be honest - maybe you should look through them again. It wasn't just the so-called 'chuckle reich' that were arguing against it (or at least about it) but also even-handed types like Ambient Sheep and rare visitors to CC like Timmay.

QuoteI for one couldn't be bother arguing in those threads, because that's all those threads ending up being, arguments.

It takes two opposing stances to argue, though, and Nathan Barley's supporters did themselves no favours for the most part.

QuoteI just wanted to stick my oar in here before all the "we all hated Nathan Barley " shite came out again, because we didn't hate it.

Nobody says that though. As far as I can see, people are saying "I hated..."

TJ

Quote from: "Paaaaul"I'd rather watch a relatively poor Morris project than most of the Jimmy Carr/Johnny Vegas shite churned out in the name of comedy by Channel 4.

I'd go as far as to say that the two are pretty much indistinguishable these days.