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, 01:26:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Vote in the first annual Tumbleweed Awards, win a Nathan Barley DVD, and download a fabbo GLR Show

Started by Neil, November 14, 2005, 10:37:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Neil

Big old update today with lots to get through, you might want to stick the kettle on.  First up, you will undoubtedly be interested to know that Chris Morris will be appearing in Graham Linehan's new sitcom, The I.T. Crowd.  You can read the reports of Bobby Onion and ffogems  in that very thread, click their names to go to the relevant posts.  They were at seperate recordings, and both of them saw pre-recorded inserts featuring Morris as the boss of the company.  So it does seem to be more substantial than just a cameo.  It'll certainly be good to see him performing some comedy again!  

Here's some great comedy-related news...The Armando Iannucci Shows have finally been cleared for a DVD release, and it will be available in May with some slight music changes.  This news comes courtesy of benthalo, who actually organised the internet campaign to get the shows released.  So, if you sent an email or letter then it wasn't in vain, your support was crucial to securing this release.

Next up, we have five Nathan Barley DVD's to give away, courtesy of the extremely nice people at Killa Communications.  To stand a chance of winning all you have to do is answer the following multiple-choice question:

What was the working title for Nathan Barley?

A) Dan Reacts
B) Box Of Slice
C) Massingbird Stitty Stitty Stit
D) Trombone
E) Apes And Music


If you don't know, just guess.  Send your answer to me at waynecarr@gmail.com and please try to put "Barley Comp" in the subject line to make my life easier.  You've got until the 28th of November to enter, after that I'll be in touch with the winners for names and addresses.

And while you've got that email address handy, you can also use it to enter the first annual Tumbleweed Awards.  In short, this is an antidote to the nauseating spectacle that is the annual British Comedy Awards, a back-slapping waste of time that throws nominations at Ricky Gervais just to secure themselves plenty of publicity. While discussing the latest nominations Emergency Lalla Ward Ten suggested the possibility of a comedy awards ceremony for bad comedy.  It was quickly named "The Tumbleweeds" by Regular John, and the rest of us have spent the last week or so creating categories and nominating people/shows.  The nominations were counted up last night - major thanks to Lalla Ward for the hours of help he provided here - and we now have a final list of nominations.  Now, it's over to you lot to decide who wins!  Full instructions are included in this post, just make you send your completed forms to waynecarr@gmail.com before the 9th of Decemeber.  If you want to vote for The Tumbleweed Awards and enter the competition then it would help me if you sent two seperate emails.  

We also have the next in the series of 1993 GLR shows for you to download...this is an absolutely cracking run of shows, and we must again thank Mat Savage for very kindly supplying them.  Do bear in mind that we're always looking out for more rare Morris stuff - there were plenty more GLR shows before the 1993 run - please get in touch if you taped them.  This download is once again available over Bit Torrent, all we ask is that you help to seed it for as long as you possibly can.  We've also recently reseeded the complete R1 Shows and On The Hour, you can find more details in this thread.

Chris Morris GLR Show - 17th April 1994 - 131 Megs -

UPDATE:  I've also now uploaded this show to a web hosting service for those people who can't use Bit Torrent.  You can get it here

So anyway, the Nathan Barley DVD review... Oh Christ, do we have to?  Well alright then, but first let's try and avoid all that awful unpleasantness reocurring.  If you're going to respond to this review then please bear the following in mind:  Firstly, no, the people on this site do not just automatically turn their noses up at anything Morris-flavoured which doesn't have him performing a "Jeremy Paxman impression."  If that were the case (and a lot of you seem to accuse me, TJ and the forum posters of it) then the likes of GLR, Blue Jam and the R1 shows wouldn't be held in such high regard.  And yes, I did savage the show before it went out, but it was on the basis of a review copy...why did that cause so much annoyance with some people?  How do they cope when they see a newspaper? 'My god, they're describing the contents of tonights telly shows before they have even been shown, what devilish magic is this?!'  And, yes, this is supposed to be a "Chris Morris fan-site", but why then do negative reviews of his sub-standard work confuse some of you so much?  Should we grit our teeth and lie, or get the Iraqi Information Minister in to review crap like Barley instead?  (Actually, I think Jim Shelley already has dibs on him for Morris-based reviews.)

Now then... The Barley DVD comes with a litte book called "Fucking With Your Head, Yeah?" and it's predictably dull.  Apparently it's a satire of an artist called Banksy, but being almost completely unfamiliar with his work I tend to just think of it as a load of recycled crap from the series and more bloody Twin Towers jokes.  

The weirdest thing about the DVD however is...the pilot is actually vaguely enjoyable!  It's still not really funny, but it's certainly a different beast to the finished article.  The main thing it has going in its favour is that it dispenses with all that heavy-handed nonsense about the Idiots.  Phoebe and Joey don't feature at all (although the dreadful Spencer Brown does appear briefly in the art gallery, which is one of the few things they reshot for the series), and the show feels a whole lot more subtle for this.  I have to wonder whether they watched the pilot back and thought, 'shit, we're writing this for the modern-day Channel 4!  Better pleb everything down and draw it all in crayon!' Another problem with the actual series is that it gives the impression of having a story arc, but promising plot strands are actually just chucked away before they're fully realised. A good example is at the end of episode 3, where it builds to something of a cliff-hanger which...is never actually resolved.  I do wonder whether some of this is down to the amount of stuff they reuse from the pilot.  There are rumours about it being obscenely expensive...did this mean they were then forced to salvage a lot of bits and pieces for the actual series?  

The characters are quite different in the pilot too, in some cases they're a hell of a lot more engaging.  Dan Ashcroft is the prime example, in the actual series his story-lines seemed to just revolve around him being given some degrading assignment from SugarApe, which he made disatisfied noises about before swiftly getting on with it.  Here though, he's a lot more interesting and cynical, he pushes people around and is all the more engaging for it.  God knows why they cut his balls off for the series, he could have been much better.  Nathan is quite different too, he's a media all-rounder, writing scripts and making movies... the dull website stuff is mostly left out of it. He's also a good bit more sympathetic, especially with Claire who he does open up to at one point.  He's still a dick with questionable morals, but dammit, at least there's more meat to him here.  Like I say though, once they got past the pilot all the sharp edges got smoothed off, and big bright neon sign-posts with the phrase "GET IT?" were stuck up everywhere. The pilot definitely benefits from the longer running-time and the tighter focus on a smaller group of characters. Another character who is much better in the pilot is the one who Noel Fielding plays, and that's for the simple reason that he keeps his stupid trendy talentless gob shut.  And Claire?  Still just a sulky bore in need of a rewrite and a damn good tickling.  

While the pilot does make some hints towards what could have been a much better end product, it does still have its faults.  The main one is that Morris and Brooker still mangle the dialogue dreadfully, they just can't write sitcom dialogue, partly because they're too busy trying to self-conciously sound like they think Chris Morris did in the mid-90's.  They just seem so bloody concerned with writing lines that people will quote to each other...and your average Morris fans standards are so low these days that plenty of them will do just that, go and have a look at MySpace or any of those other dreadful communities.  See, this is the thing though...the people this show is about...they all love it!  Can't get enough of its aimless plotting or barely-defined characters!  That's why the accusation that has always clung to Barley - right from it's TvGoHome origins - is such balls.  'You don't like Nathan Barley because you are Nathan Barley' they all chant.  Oh, bollocks, what a rubbish get-out clause that is, especially as it plays up its specious image as 'hard-hitting satire'.  

No, the truth is that the only people who really seem to appreciate Nathan Barley are the Nathan Barleys themselves.  Why?  It seems to boil down to   "comedy of recognition" factors.  Perhaps that's why in the run-up to the first episode being transmitted, Morris and Brooker were busily trying to convince everyone that 'these people exist everywhere', instead of just in some tiny little part of London that only media tossers actually care about.  So anyway, what you have here is the targets of the show lapping it up...which is grimly amusing, as the Dan Ashcroft character does seem to be based around Chris Morris' loathing of a certain section of his fanbase.  And presumably the Rise Of The Idiots article anticipated this.  I'm sure that it's all very ironic, or some-bloody-thing, and will once again inevitably be claimed as a victory for Morris regardlesss.  Low ratings? The plebs just don't get it!  Not nearly enough actual jokes?  It's clearly a DRAMA! Claire never says anything remotely interesting or funny?  It's a satire on women!  You get the picture.  

Anyway, pilot aside, there's also one of the usual wacky Morris DVD extras on there... it's an option to watch one of the episodes with three of the characters voices redubbed.  It's like that section from "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"  but with all the jokes sucked out.  Two of the three voices are just not comical or exaggerated enough to merit inclusion.  And why not do all the voices anyway? With a bit more effort this could actually have been an interesting feature, at least as far as wacky Morris DVD extras go.  The general presentation on the disc is very good, with filmed menus and the full version of those junkie songs playing over some of the sub-menus.  There are also some deleted scenes (crap), all the trails, some internet radio things by Barley and his mates (dull), a stills gallery and a load of Barley columns from TVGoHome.

A couple of hidden extras have been found so far, firstly just leave it running on the Images sub-menu and eventually Barley will start talking about "tagging."  Also, watch the main menus for a robbery (quite amusing), and Barley taking you to see some of his tags, hopefully at least one of which said Vambo Still Rool. This next easter egg was found by Riley Elf, just select the stills gallery... once it gets to Nathan's Death Valley pic, you'll see a yellow splodge on the right of the screen, hit enter and listen to Nathan unsuccessfully attempting to impress his friends.

butnut


Duffy

Thanks again for all your efforts, Neil! I'll give the GLR show a listen tonight.


Pinball

You're a star Neil!

I'll leave the torrent open. Currently 4 seeders and 15 leechers.

Why can't CM do more stuff like this nowadays??


Gamma Ray

I enjoyed your Nathan Barley review Neil. I'm not sure that I agree with all of it, but I think you make some good, clear points. It's interesting to hear about the pilot, I'll have to check that out.

It's also interesting to hear about the Banksy pastiche. Banksy is a local lad, and I always liked his stuff. There is a definite angle to it, whereas I figured that Nathan Barley was at least in part attempting to poke fun at empty posturing. Grimly amusing indeed ...

23 Daves

I realise it's something of a "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise?" type question, but... if a sit-com presents razor sharp observations of a bunch of characters most people aren't familiar with, does that stop it from being a good sit-com?  If it strikes a chord with those who are familiarised with the subject material, has it done its job or failed because the wider audience didn't understand?

For instance, most of the older members of my family don't like "Spaced", because they simply don't understand the points of reference that are being made.  However, it's still not held up as being an example of a bad sit-com by the vast majority of our generation (though, if I'm being honest, I never quite understood what all the fuss was about, so perhaps I picked a bad example).

I'm quite sure that the demographic of "Nathan Barley" probably did end up becoming a bunch of urban trendies and people either in the media or on the fringes of the media, but I wouldn't choose to dismiss it purely on the basis of failing to reach or be understood by a wider audience.  I realise that wasn't the central point of Neil's criticism, but it was something I wanted to air anyway.

Janek's Little Black Box

There have been a number of suggestions in the past that 'Nathan Barley' was a satire on sites like 'Cookd and Bombd', but I would like to go further and suggest that it was an attack on 'Cookd and Bombd' specifically.

A lot of people don't like the internet very much. Shops who lose customers to online retailers for example, or musicians whose songs are more readily downloaded than purchased. But their resentment is for purely economic reasons. Those harbouring the most furious hatred of the actual content of websites surely comprise the entertainment industry and specifically, the British television industry.

Nobody needs to be told about how telly is shifting bricks because more people spend their leisure time in front of computers than televisions. Or about the viability of a liscence fee or immoral advertising revenue when equivalent content may be obtained online without the need for either. But what some people may not be aware of is that it isn't the executives who are most terrified - it's the 'artists'.

Maybe there is good reason for this. Honesty is rather awkward, especially if it's critical, and in the 'real world' there are many effective ways of stemming the flow. For example, misdirection techniques such as speaking quickly and loudly, bathos etc...all designed to confuse and distract from the guts of an argument. But although this is far more difficult to do in an online forum like 'Cookd and Bombd' it doesn't mean that people aren't trying. However, it appears that such people are treated with the disdain they undoubtedly deserve, post once and once only, and almost always state that they will not be returning to the discussion. The latter is done to imply that they must return to 'real life', and is a psychological gambit to make those contibuting to the discussion question it's worth.

But this is what now defines the manifesto of Chris Morris. Regardless of the quality of 'Nathan Barley', in the final analysis it was a criticism limitation exercise, specifically from attack online.
Morris cannot be touched by internet criticism, not now anyway. But this wasn't always the case, and is still not so for many other comedy writers who, lacking the energy and creativity of Brooker and Morris in this regard, struggle with clumsy psychological techniques to defend themselves against the relentless onslaught of internet honesty.

A good example of this is 'The Simpsons' but there are many others. In one episode where the internet was put forward to publicise a campaign, another character reacted in the negative because, '...we need to reach people whose opinions actually matter.' and in another, where someone expressed their dislike of a television programme, the same character responded with an exasperated outburst along the lines that people who work in television are somehow altruistic gods, offering thousands of hours of entertainment for free.
And most people using the internet on television (in fiction) are more or less tarred with that brush. This is all done in order to add weight to the idea that those who communicate online are essentially inferior to those who do so by speech, to 'real people', in the 'real world'.

But whilst these techniques are blunt and obvious, the 'Nathan Barley' gambit worked like a dream - but exactly why was it implemented at all? And why Morris? Well, Morris is a natural performer, his power is in his voice. Irrespective of the targets of his work, he remains a supremely confident conversationalist whose survival relies on this aspect of his character, and who over time has developed sophisticated techniques with which he is able to control situationis in the 'real world' but which, he is realising, are all but ineffective online.

Because people like Morris are only now beginning to see that the internet isn't the 'real world', no matter how hard you may try and pretend it is. In order to survive for very long in this arena you must listen in a way that people like him are unused to doing as all their lives they have been taught that debate is an even mix of reason and posture.

But an internet forum like 'Cookd and Bombd' cannot be intimidated. It cannot be threatened or bullied into being quiet or changing it's mind or saying somethng nonsensical for comic effect. And those who try, in the end will fail. They will all fail.

It's not just Morris, or even Brooker. Many don't understand the possibilities of forum discussion, and when this is the case the internet is very much how it is often depicted, a dispensible network typing things at each other day and night across the face of the earth.

However, in the hands of those who appreciate the incredible oppurtunity that this technology presents us with, forum discussions become the ultimate evolution of true debate, where the distracting games of intimidation, rather than being celebrated as they are in the 'real world' as intelligence quantifiers, are rightly discouraged, and with great care, dialogue may progress with a level of honesty and fairness that you couldn't hope for in the 'real world'.

Even 'Cookd and Bombd' have not completely achieved this, but this is what such sites are working towards. And this is what people like Morris and Brooker don't like.

butnut

That is one hell of a post. I'm not sure if new members can sign in (if in fact you are new), but when new sign-ups are allowed, I hope you do.

I think you make some interesting points about how debate on the internet changes the relationship between the 'artist' and the critical audience. Rather than just possibly over-hearing things in the pub, now creators of TV shows, films etc. can see the raw reaction. of a large audience. Remember on the Adam and Joe DVD how upset they were by the online reaction to their attempts to change their show  in the 4th series pilot? This is a situation that is possibly unique in history.

I must say I don't quite see how NB was a direct attack on CookdandBombd, or how it was a critical limitation excercise. I only saw 2 episodes, and OK there were some internet parodies, but they seemed to be of tramp fighting, that kind of thing. I didn't hear of any attacks on internet forums, and I think I would have read about that on here! Are you saying that NB is implying the entire internet is filled with porn and mindless crap? Or do you think Morris was saying  to us: "YOU ARE ALL NATHAN BARLEZ! LOL!!!!111"?

If Morris was saying that, then. as you point out in that rousing defence of internet forums and the level of debate on boards such as this, he is running scared.

Something Not Used

What bothers me greatly is the idea of a guy, who hasn't accomplished much, sitting at his PC constantly criticising a guy he has created a shrine for.
I'm not saying this to be deliberatly rude..I honestly mean it. Its just....odd.
Why bother? Does this person have nothing else to do? Is the person trying to contact his God indirectly through the site? Is he trying to piss of his God so he can at least exist in that God's mind and therefore be somehow 'linked' to him?
It reminds me of that guy who was in love with the Libertines lead singer.
I could go on but it will look like a personal attack.

oh..it already does.

TJ

Quote from: "Something Not Used"What bothers me greatly is the idea of a guy, who hasn't accomplished much, sitting at his PC constantly criticising a guy he has created a shrine for.

Well, it's hardly constant, given that he's forever gushing about the Radio 1 shows or TDT given the slightest hint of a chance, and I'd imagine he isn't at his PC right now but is out on one of his customary long walks. Bit pedantic but I thought it needed clarifying.

David Qunt

Quote from: "TJ"
Quote from: "Something Not Used"What bothers me greatly is the idea of a guy, who hasn't accomplished much, sitting at his PC constantly criticising a guy he has created a shrine for.

Well, it's hardly constant, given that he's forever gushing about the Radio 1 shows or TDT given the slightest hint of a chance, and I'd imagine he isn't at his PC right now but is out on one of his customary long walks. Bit pedantic but I thought it needed clarifying.


We already know Neil likes the examples you quote, which interestingly (for the purposes of this thread) all pre-date CaB.

I can't help wondering what the reaction to NB would have been if certain opinions - which let's face it, have always been quite forthright -  on it hadn't been available before the programme was aired. I am presently weighing up  what might have happened if, on receiving preview tapes, the site in general (to shift emphasis away from Neil personally) had exercised more consideration and simply described the nature and content of the programme without expressing an opinion on it either way, whether in that case some of the more vehement posters on either side would have been more rounded in their opinions. In other words, leaving it until transmission before presenting opinions. Possibly no-one's opinions would have been any different. But equally they might also possibly have been quite different, which is what interests me.

I realise that the line between what I've just said, and people complaining about Eastenders storylines being published weeks in advance in the likes of Heat magazine, is quite thin. But the point remains, when TDT and the R1 Music Shows were being aired, their contents had not been aired and dissected ad nauseam, and were a surprise to all.

In my opinion, this tumbleweed awards crap does nothing except focus on the negative aspects of things in general. Which in my mind is not very positive, and hence not very constructive. Given what I've said above perhaps I should keep that opinion to myself until the (very subjective given the pre-selected options as to what is considered bad) results are announced but there you go, it's a discussion forum after all.

When all's said and done, I do understand that I'm a mere visitor here, and enjoy the right to express an opinion on the rare occasions I see fit and can be arsed. It's the site owner's and admins' prerogative to do with as they please in the end.

TJ

That's an interesting point, although from my point of view I should stress that I didn't receive the first preview discs, and then changed my mind and decided I didn't want them in advance. I still didn't like it...

Duffy

Quote from: "Something Not Used"What bothers me greatly is the idea of a guy, who hasn't accomplished much, sitting at his PC constantly criticising a guy he has created a shrine for.
I'd hardly say a shrine. And I'd much prefer a site like this, where Chris Morris isn't spoken of as some sort of God, to a blind fanboy worship site, where any negative comments are regarded as blasphemy. Neil, and many here, just happen to think many of Morris' later projects haven't been up to scratch, and that's it. What the Hell is wrong with expressing an honest opinion?

As for "hasn't accomplished much", well I don't know anything about Neil's life, apart from the fact that he happens to have set up this site, which is one of the more prestigious comedy sites on the Net. But even if you think this site's awful, aren't you making something of a presumption there?

Neil

Ha, nice one Something Not Used!  Janek's Little Black Box writes a long and well-written post which details how some people try to stop/devalue internet criticism by making out that all internet users are saaaaad.    And then you come along with a pitch-perfect imitation of the kind of under-handed cunt he's talking about.  Great satire!

Quote from: "David Qunt"Given what I've said above perhaps I should keep that opinion to myself until the (very subjective given the pre-selected options as to what is considered bad) results are announced but there you go, it's a discussion forum after all.

Just wanted to point out that there was a whole nomination process to determine what was included in the final list of nominees.  For about a week people were invited to vote up to three choices for each category, and then Lalla Ward and I counted all the nominations to come up with the final list.  It was open to everyone.  And in fact, prior to that we'd also asked people to give suggestions for the categories themselves, many of which were used.  

QuoteIn my opinion, this tumbleweed awards crap does nothing except focus on the negative aspects of things in general. Which in my mind is not very positive, and hence not very constructive.

Does it automatically follow that things which aren't positive are inherently unconstructive, then?  I think it'll be an interesting straw poill of the visitors of this site.  I also don't think there's anything particularly wrong with 'negativity'.  I mean, it's been a bloody awful year for British comedy so this awards thing seems like a natural step to take.  I'm not sure why you expect us to only be doing "constructive" things anyway.

Gypsum Fantastic

Quote from: "David Qunt"Possibly no-one's opinions would have been any different. But equally they might also possibly have been quite different, which is what interests me.
No - I don't think so. Why would anybody make a conscious effort to always agree with the general consensus? What would they have to gain by that?

Anonymous

Quote from: "Gypsum Fantastic"
Quote from: "David Qunt"Possibly no-one's opinions would have been any different. But equally they might also possibly have been quite different, which is what interests me.
No - I don't think so. Why would anybody make a conscious effort to always agree with the general consensus? What would they have to gain by that?

You don't think so, I do.

Who said anything about making a conscious effort to agree with the consensus? Not me.

Your opinions on NB were clearly expressed before the programme aired (unlike with TDT and R1 Music Shows). I'm questioning whether they may (given that you are in a position of privilege, so to speak, as site owner) have coloured people's opinions of NB had you chosen to leave your opinion until after broadcast. A legitimate enough question, I think.  

I don't think you have anything to gain either way. Just putting up for debate whether it might have been better, in the interests of balanced debate, to withhold your *opinion* until after we had all seen what you saw on the preview tapes.

slim


David Qunt

Quote from: "Anonymous"
Quote from: "Gypsum Fantastic"
Quote from: "David Qunt"Possibly no-one's opinions would have been any different. But equally they might also possibly have been quite different, which is what interests me.
No - I don't think so. Why would anybody make a conscious effort to always agree with the general consensus? What would they have to gain by that?

You don't think so, I do.

Who said anything about making a conscious effort to agree with the consensus? Not me.

Your opinions on NB were clearly expressed before the programme aired (unlike with TDT and R1 Music Shows). I'm questioning whether they may (given that you are in a position of privilege, so to speak, as site owner) have coloured people's opinions of NB had you chosen to leave your opinion until after broadcast. A legitimate enough question, I think.  

I don't think you have anything to gain either way. Just putting up for debate whether it might have been better, in the interests of balanced debate, to withhold your *opinion* until after we had all seen what you saw on the preview tapes.

The above post was from me incidentally, forgot to log in before posting, d'oh.

Compounded that by mis-assuming that Neil posted that, when in fact it wasn't. Point stands about pre-transmission opinions, however.

David Qunt

Quote from: "slim"Erm, I think you've mixed up GF and Neil there.

Yeah, my see other post.

Sorry.

Neil

Quote from: "Anonymous"Your opinions on NB were clearly expressed before the programme aired (unlike with TDT and R1 Music Shows). I'm questioning whether they may (given that you are in a position of privilege, so to speak, as site owner) have coloured people's opinions of NB had you chosen to leave your opinion until after broadcast. A legitimate enough question, I think.  

I think it grossly over-states any sort of effect this site could possibly have, David!  I think your argument also credits the average visitor here with very little intelligence.  

QuoteI don't think you have anything to gain either way. Just putting up for debate whether it might have been better, in the interests of balanced debate, to withhold your *opinion* until after we had all seen what you saw on the preview tapes.

This is just a pissy little website though, if you're that worried about this kind of thing then you should really be petitioning the likes of Newsnight Review.  They also reviewed the show before the first episode went out, and they also showed clips.

David Qunt

Quote from: "David Qunt"Given what I've said above perhaps I should keep that opinion to myself until the (very subjective given the pre-selected options as to what is considered bad) results are announced but there you go, it's a discussion forum after all.

Quote from: "Neil"Just wanted to point out that there was a whole nomination process to determine what was included in the final list of nominees.  For about a week people were invited to vote up to three choices for each category, and then Lalla Ward and I counted all the nominations to come up with the final list.  It was open to everyone.  And in fact, prior to that we'd also asked people to give suggestions for the categories themselves, many of which were used.  

Didn't realise that. I should have read the update/email better. ;)

Quote from: "David Qunt"In my opinion, this tumbleweed awards crap does nothing except focus on the negative aspects of things in general. Which in my mind is not very positive, and hence not very constructive.

Quote from: "Neil"Does it automatically follow that things which aren't positive are inherently unconstructive, then?  I think it'll be an interesting straw poill of the visitors of this site.  I also don't think there's anything particularly wrong with 'negativity'.  I mean, it's been a bloody awful year for British comedy so this awards thing seems like a natural step to take.  I'm not sure why you expect us to only be doing "constructive" things anyway.

Fair point. However, I don't expect purely constructivivity from this place, though - it's more a case of 'hope next year is a better year for comedy' than 'fuck's sake, last year was shit'.

Neil

Oh sure, we hope next year will be much better.  

Anyway, just finished uploading this GLR show to megaupload for those who can't use torrents:  Click

David Qunt

Quote from: "Neil"
Quote from: "Anonymous"Your opinions on NB were clearly expressed before the programme aired (unlike with TDT and R1 Music Shows). I'm questioning whether they may (given that you are in a position of privilege, so to speak, as site owner) have coloured people's opinions of NB had you chosen to leave your opinion until after broadcast. A legitimate enough question, I think.  

Quote from: "Neil"I think it grossly over-states any sort of effect this site could possibly have, David!  I think your argument also credits the average visitor here with very little intelligence.  

Perhaps. But in some cases, very little intelligence was shown. You can't say that didn't frustrate you too, surely?

QuoteI don't think you have anything to gain either way. Just putting up for debate whether it might have been better, in the interests of balanced debate, to withhold your *opinion* until after we had all seen what you saw on the preview tapes.

Quote from: "Neil"This is just a pissy little website though, if you're that worried about this kind of thing then you should really be petitioning the likes of Newsnight Review.  They also reviewed the show before the first episode went out, and they also showed clips.

I concede this may be another fair point.

However, to use your example, they have 'review' in their title, whereas this site doesn't. And I'm not sure whether Newsnight Review went out out in advance of NB's transmission, or whether they editorialised in any preview they may have done to the extent you did.  

I'm not sure you've attempted to answered my question - the one about whether holding off on presenting any  opinions on here until afterwards might have promoted (not caused, but advanced the cause of) more intelligent debate, as opposed to perhaps fuelling some of the sniping that occurred. Which, in all fairness, you will always probably get no matter what you do.

Neil

Janek's Little Black Book, that was a great post.  I don't agree with all of it, but it's certainly given me lots to think about.  I agree with butnut though, I don't think there was anything specifically about this site in Barley.  Nor do I think there was anything that was meant to refer to us in a vaguer way.  We did get a lot of 'haha it's all about you!' from the people who liked the show, but I think that's a by-product of Morris attacking his fans, and of us being a part of that fan-base.  That's what I mean about people chasing their tails, there was a lot of finger-pointing.  

Quote from: "Janek's Little Black Box"But this is what now defines the manifesto of Chris Morris. Regardless of the quality of 'Nathan Barley', in the final analysis it was a criticism limitation exercise, specifically from attack online.
Morris cannot be touched by internet criticism, not now anyway. But this wasn't always the case, and is still not so for many other comedy writers who, lacking the energy and creativity of Brooker and Morris in this regard, struggle with clumsy psychological techniques to defend themselves against the relentless onslaught of internet honesty.

I'd love to know what gives you this impression from Nathan Barley.  I'm not sure I agree at all that it's his own Comic Book Guy, intended to dissuade people from commenting on his work.  What specifically made you think that?  I think the Preacher-Man stuff was instead attacking the people who laud his every utterance as genius...or 'god-like genius', which is the more familiar fan cliche assorted with Morris.    

Also, I think Morris has always given the impression of being very much pro-debate.  Not that he generally engages in the debate himself, or wants to be seen doing so.  I do recall that he eventually appeared in The Observer (Or Guardian?  The former I think) to defend the Brass Eye Special, but he did so in such a way that he wasn't directly quoted.   I mean, it was very obviously an interview, but all his statements were worded in such a way as to suggest that they'd been told to friends, who had then went and told this reporter.  Absolutely transparent, but he's able to maintain the image of not being seen to publically defend or explain his work.

As I say, I'm really interestd in hearing more of your thoughts about Nathan Barley, with particular regard to Morris trying to stem critical discussion about his work.  When I read the phrase "criticism limitation excercise" in your post, I instantly thought of that dreadful interview that Morris and Brooker gave shortly after Barley.  To be honest, that to me brought to mind Alan Partridge begging for a second series.  The reason I mention it again here though is because of this passage:

Quote from: "Chris Morris"Nathan is not al-Zarqawi. He's a cocky tool who tries too hard. If you really expect that to summon the full force of your hatred, I'd say you were mentally ill.

Which ties it in with your Comic Book Guy theory!  That interview didn't actually ask them any challenging questions either, and gawd knows a show like Barley certainly warrants plenty of them!  I mean, it's a dreadful quote that, isn't it?  It's not a million miles away from the sort of cunt who would go on an internet forum and try to discredit someone by comparing them to an obviously disturbed stalker.

I'll say this though, you're bang on about TV people panicking about negative criticism on the net.  Two of the people behind Balls Of Steel used exactly the sort of tactics that you out-lined in your post.  And an extremely nasty cunt - who has her name listed prominently  in the credits of a Chris Morris TV show - once told us that one of my updates could get people sacked.  Sacked!  Imagine being threatened with that, it was extremely unpleasant.  If the intention is to stop us publishing details ahead of the show's transmission then these scare tactics simply won't work.  They'll worry me, yes, but I don't see why we should bow to such cunty underhanded tricks.  It was a truly inconsequential part of the eventual show, too.  A fucking sight gag!  

See, I used to be sceptical about all this, I thought...nah, this doesn't really happen, does it?  I mean, it's just a web site, who cares?  You're right though, it happens.  I also know of other fan sites who have been bullied in an attempt to control the flow of information.  Sometimes with legal threats over the most trivial of matters.  The people behind the stars of one of Britain's biggest current comedy shows are particularly notorious for this sort of behaviour.

butnut...didn't you have a good story about how the Hitch Hiker's Guide movie people were planning to respond to negative internet criticism?

Neil

Quote from: "David Qunt"Perhaps. But in some cases, very little intelligence was shown. You can't say that didn't frustrate you too, surely?

It did, yes.  There was also hundreds of pages of decent discussion about the show though.  

QuoteHowever, to use your example, they have 'review' in their title, whereas this site doesn't. And I'm not sure whether Newsnight Review went out out in advance of NB's transmission, or whether they editorialised in any preview they may have done to the extent you did.  

It did go out in advance of the first episode of Barley, and Lawson also gushed about it on the radio.

QuoteI'm not sure you've attempted to answered my question - the one about whether holding off on presenting any  opinions on here until afterwards might have promoted (not caused, but advanced the cause of) more intelligent debate, as opposed to perhaps fuelling some of the sniping that occurred. Which, in all fairness, you will always probably get no matter what you do.

OK I think you do probably have a point here.  However I don't think it would have had much effect in the long run really.  The way it panned out was that the people who wanted to discuss the show generally did so in Comedy Chat.  Whereas the people who were offended at Morris being knocked just lined up in this part of the forums to tell me and TJ to 'shut our fucking mouths.'  Not that there wasn't some decent discussion in here also, but generally it was dire.  And any negative review would surely have caused the same reaction, regardless of whether the first episode had went out yet or not.  

I think you perhaps have a point in saying that my review fuelled an awful lot of sniping, and I knew I was going to get well and truly lynched when I put it up.   Waiting until the show had went out would have been a cop-out.  I'm sure some people were offended at being met with a front page slating of a show they enjoyed.  What can I do though?  I'm not interested in doing the site if it means I have to start lying or cow-towing to people who don't like to see their heroes being knocked.  Sorry if that sounds at all self-righteous or pompous!

butnut

Quote from: "Neil"butnut...didn't you have a good story about how the Hitch Hiker's Guide movie people were planning to respond to negative internet criticism?

It was a definite strategy of the HHGG production to 'flood' the internet with postive reviews to 'drown out' the negative review that MJ Simpson came out within the weeks before the film was released. One of their methods would surely have been posting positive reviews on forums.  I imagine this is a widespread tactic, especially with something with an already sizeable audience, like Hitchhiker's.

Original post here

23 Daves

Neil, that "sacking" line is standard in my experience.  Back when I freelanced for a regional mag (a regional mag for God's sake!) we used to hear it once a week.  "If you don't include an interview/ good review with such-and-such, they'll be dropped/ I'll lose my job/ children will die, etc."  It's often blackmail, and sometimes it has a hint of truth about it.  Really though, anyone who tells you it's entirely your fault that someone else won't have a future as a result of you expressing your honest opinion is bullshitting. And anyone who gets sacked as a result of a very minor Internet leak is working for a company full of arseholes.  Far worse things happen that that on a weekly basis just about anywhere.

On the subject of Internet forum references on NB, I have to say that I always thought that the name 15Peter20 was very Internet Forum-esque.  Unless anyone else can shed better light on its origin.  I'm not too sure what the point of it was, though.

Janek's Little Black Box

Re-reading that interview with Brooker and Morris, it's clear who dominated the writing process. Brooker hides self-doubt and nervousness behind a mask of confident anger, and he would have got away with it but for the fact that his writing partner happened to be a committed conservative hiding behind a mask of restless concern, immaturity, self-doubt and moral ambiguity.

It's because of this rather than any kind of artistic consideration that any true worth the 'Nathan Barley' character might once have possessed as Brooker's individual effort didn't stand a chance of surviving in the hands of the two of them. But then, it's only ever been about Morris, and no one knew that more than Brooker.

So who is to blame? Certainly not Brooker, that's for sure. He does what he's told and believes in what he's told and as such is innocent of any crime, but only in the same way that a soldier is not a murderer.

Morris on the other hand, is a bully who has decided that he would like to be a victim instead, and in order to achieve this he is blotting out anything that doesn't fit the pattern, but at the same time the things that anger Morris aren't injustice or infidelity, they are timidity and financial embarrassment. In fact, these things make Morris feel sick. That's also true of Brooker, Coogan, Lucas, Walliams and Gervais etc... but they don't have any real influence, unlike Morris who had the opportunity to affect attitudes for the better and chose not to.

And that's because there are no arguments against Morris and what he chooses to do, even though it's often unkind, hypocritical, reactionary and negative in intent, just as there are no convincing arguments against his legacy of nihilistic, absurdist hedonism spreading across the cultural landscape like a disease, it's because Morris and those like him exist outside of argument in a world that was created for that very purpose.

I keep thinking of all the time I've spent watching comedy on television. At the back of my mind I must have known I was being thrown scraps from the big table, only I couldn't quite make out the faces of the diners until now.