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, 11:36:39 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

slim

Can you justify any of the psychological profiles you've attributed to either of them there, Janek's Little Black Box? What you've written is both cutting and unevidenced and I think rather unfair.

Your post smacks of melodrama. I would say bitterness, but that doesn't feel  right.

I would assume, given your apparent familiarity with their personalities, that you either know them personally or are making assumptions based on public appearances, information and interviews, perhaps combined with an analysis of their writing.

Either way, your first post was melodramatic and this next one more so. I'd like to see something that would justify your attacks.

23 Daves

I have continually got the impression - both through rumour and the behavioural patterns we know of - that Morris is quite controlling.  Think about it - he keeps things unnecessarily under wraps like dirty secrets (and for what reason in NB's case?), worked privately on a lot of his material for "The Day Today" allowing few others access to the writing process (or was this "On The Hour"?  Somebody clarify, please) and appears to have a very singular vision he aggressively pushes through, against the protests of television staff and critics.  In some instances that's created some superb work, but I've never been too sure what it says about him as a human being.

But anyway... speculation and all that.  I'm just a cynic who doesn't want to meet any of his heroes because I naturally suspect that most famous (or even semi-famous) people are arseholes.  It was just interesting to have some of my suspicions articulated above, that's all.

Janek's Little Black Box

Quote from: "slim"Can you justify any of the psychological profiles you've attributed to either of them there, Janek's Little Black Box? What you've written is both cutting and unevidenced and I think rather unfair.

Your post smacks of melodrama. I would say bitterness, but that doesn't feel  right.

I would assume, given your apparent familiarity with their personalities, that you either know them personally or are making assumptions based on public appearances, information and interviews, perhaps combined with an analysis of their writing.

Either way, your first post was melodramatic and this next one more so. I'd like to see something that would justify your attacks.

Fair enough. Don't worry about it though, nobody's interested and I've run out of things to say.

slim

Oh no, don't sod off - people are interested, I'm just particularly pernickity about these kind of things. I'd be interested to read the background to the profiling you've come up with.

butnut

Yes don't run away JLBB. For someone who wrote this...

Quote from: "Janek's Little Black Box"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'.

...you don't seem to actually engage in debate with people. Like Slim, I would like you to give some sort of evidence to back up what you have to say.

Almost Yearly

Quote from: "Janek's Little Black Box"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. [...and harder to effect on an internet forum]
That was a good observation too, although such ploys are less "designed" than self-taught for survival in the playground and subsequently reprised as a matter of re-re-reflex. This and a couple more of your original points deserve General Discussion, when - as someone said - you can get in. Don't go.

Oh well go on then. Fuck you. See if we care.

Janek's Little Black Box

Hello again.

If I don't post anymore it won't be because I do not wish to be part of the discussion but because I really have run out of useful opinions. Everything Slim wrote was true, although I wouldn't be so reluctant to call me bitter! Indeed, I was quite surprised at how my last two posts turned out, and didn't think they were nearly melodramatic or bitter enough!

I can prove absolutely nothing regarding the attitudes of Brooker, Morris and the others. Nevertheless, I still believe it to be the case, it frightens me and I don't like it, and if forums like this work to allow discussions outside the normal rules of conversation, then they may one day create better ways in which to think calmly about such things, and to reach conclusions.

So it seemed like both a natural end to my posts and an example of the point I was trying to make, that instead of humiliating those elements of the world you disagree with into non-existence, a fairer way is simply to express that which you believe is wrong, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so and to clarify things in my own mind.

matronboy

I have no problem with the cut throat attitudes often expressed on this board , nor did I think Nathan Barley particularily good, but Neil needs to careful.

To suggests that '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' is fine, but you have to admit that you pull no punches. There is a very identifiable c + b manner of analysing comedy - there is a definite critical community here.

Again, no problem. But:

' the truth is that the only people who really seem to appreciate Nathan Barley are the Nathan Barleys themselves. '

Bollocks. Utter, utter bollocks of the highest degree. To shrug off any generalisations levelled at you, and then to deftly fire one of your own sparky quips off at others is the sheer hight of fucking nerve.

Here it is again:

'No, the truth is that the only people who really seem to appreciate Nathan Barley are the Nathan Barleys themselves'

That is such an easy thing to say. Sounds nice, sounds just about right, doesn't it? It's the sort of easily swallowed shite you see on The Culture Show or Newsnight Review. If something's flawed, or difficult, or indeed, shit, we all rush around to quickly identify the root cause of a problem in a nice, pre-packaged soundbite.  Nothing can ever be difficult, and everyone is two lazy to really dig into things, except, ususally this site and its members, who know how to look at things properly  - with intelligence, rather than Tony Parsons-lite conceit and calculation.

This site remains excellent, well done on it and all - I massively, hugely appreciate all the uploads provided, and the news (the Armando Ianucci news is great, well done everyone).

I understand that it is not quite right to turn up and have a go - but as this is in the site update rather than the comedy chat bit, I don't think I'm overstepping any lines. I will continue to read and enjoy this site, and hope that you continue to allow comment upon it.


Dogu

This is just to make a bit more information about the 'Sandra Parsonage' letter (a nominee - viral marketing) available.

Out of about 8 telephone directory listed 'Parsonage's' in Cornwall, one is an 'S.Parsonage' and lives in Redruth. So I checked their adress against the electoral register, and it turned out the 'S' = 'Sandra', and they live at that adress.

This still does not stop the name being stolen (if that is legal), but I see it as very unlikely that an 'industry cunt' or whatever would own that adress (Redruth is a slightly deprived town in Cornwall) or give out their real adress in a viral.

This does not stop the name in the letter being a coincidence, or indeed stolen from the sources I browsed, as the letter, I agree sounds very mechanical.

Janek's Little Black Box

Quote from: "23 Daves"... 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?
Personally I think the point is that it wasn't a sitcom but a satire, and satire is all about staging the greatest moralistic show on earth whilst actually helping things to remain exactly as they are or preferably to get worse. This is because it's not in the interests of a 'satirist' that anything should change for the better. I suppose it might be for an 'artist' or even a 'media terrorist' but Morris is neither and Brooker isn't anything.

A Passing Turk Slipper

Quote from: "Janek's Little Black Box"I suppose it might be for an 'artist' or even a 'media terrorist' but Morris is neither and Brooker isn't anything.
Go and join, your posts in this thread have been really great.

Shade

Regarding the DVD there's also an extended bit with Julia Davis as the weather girl under the subtitles menu.

Janek's Little Black Box

Quote from: "butnut"
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.
I personally believe there is an argument for the latter, yes, although I'm unsure as to exactly what it is. In my opinion, and it's only an opinion, the characters in 'Nathan Barley' may also have represented the various aspects of Morris and Brooker's collective psyche, or a hypothetical psyche of the kind of person the programme aims to satirise. I say that because Morris seems to be more to do with the personal than the political these days, and Brooker's work has always struck me as a very human protest against the absurdities of existance rather than any kind of structured manifesto, whatever all that means.

Quote from: "butnut"
...you don't seem to actually engage in debate with people...
Please forgive me. I have short bursts of confidence followed by long periods during which I simply can't think of anything to say, and then when I do it's stupid nonsense like this!

Janek's Little Black Box

Quote from: "Neil"
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'm not sure I agree at all that it's his own Comic Book Guy, intended to dissuade people from commenting on his work...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.
I understand that, although I also think there may be an argument that since he has reached the stage, either by accident or by design, where he is in the certain knowledge that this kind of thing will occur whatever he produces, it creates the dangerous illusion that any reaction to his work, good or bad, is a kind of frustrated awe, and there will always be some kind of reaction to it because he is so well known. In this regard, and if Morris actually wants to solve the problem rather than just complain about it, he should do everything possible to dispel the silly mystery surrounding everything he does.

gar4

Quote from: "Janek's Little Black Box"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.
Oh dear. Is it me or did all this stop making sense 2 pages ago? Don't get me wrong, you've made a couple of interesting points, but coudln't you just send all the sub-Victor Lewis Smith rubbish to the GUardian or something? Rather than inflicting it on innocent web-users, especially about a subject that all right thinking people lost interest in months ago. Nothing personal, but you don't answer questions properly and contradict yourself and it gives the impression that you spend so much time thinking about trying to be Will Self or whoever rather than about the actual points you attempt to make.

Janek's Little Black Box

Quote from: "gar4"
Quote from: "Janek's Little Black Box"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.
Oh dear. Is it me or did all this stop making sense 2 pages ago? Don't get me wrong, you've made a couple of interesting points, but coudln't you just send all the sub-Victor Lewis Smith rubbish to the GUardian or something? Rather than inflicting it on innocent web-users, especially about a subject that all right thinking people lost interest in months ago. Nothing personal, but you don't answer questions properly and contradict yourself and it gives the impression that you spend so much time thinking about trying to be Will Self or whoever rather than about the actual points you attempt to make.
Yep, fair point. Incidentally, anyone know when I'll be able to register? Ta.


Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Quote from: "David Qunt"

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.

That seems quite insulting to C&B newbies, implying that they were somehow brainwashed into disliking the show. No - they read the 'forthright' opinions and agreed with them. Maybe they would have enjoyed the show if they hadn't read the opinions, but that doesn't mean that 'enjoying it' was a natural, pure and true reaction which was later corrupted by those nasty negativite opinions. If some people were influenced by the ranting on here, it's because they read the arguments, thought 'Hmmm they've got a point', and came up with a viewpoint of their own.

What's a 'rounded' opinion anyway? One that isn't passionate?

Would you have had the same objection if Nathan Barley had been praised to the skies on here instead of given a kicking? Would you have said 'Stop being so forthright in your positivity - you'll influence people's views'?

In the past, you see, I've claimed that lots of people were tricked into liking The Office - that the hype was so widespread that they were convinced a mediocre show was excellent. This is normally (and understandably) dismissed as a patronising view. But how is it dfferent to your insistence that people were tricked into hating Nathan Barley?

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.    

I don't think the real Comedy Awards is very constructive - giving awards to people who are already media darlings. At least The Tumbleweeds makes a  statement.

TJ

Quote from: "gar4"
Quote from: "Janek's Little Black Box"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.
Oh dear. Is it me or did all this stop making sense 2 pages ago? Don't get me wrong, you've made a couple of interesting points, but coudln't you just send all the sub-Victor Lewis Smith rubbish to the GUardian or something? Rather than inflicting it on innocent web-users, especially about a subject that all right thinking people lost interest in months ago. Nothing personal, but you don't answer questions properly and contradict yourself and it gives the impression that you spend so much time thinking about trying to be Will Self or whoever rather than about the actual points you attempt to make.

Some of us are interested in what s/he has to say.

David Qunt

Quote from: "David Qunt"

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.

Quote from: "Emergency Lalla Ward Ten"That seems quite insulting to C&B newbies, implying that they were somehow brainwashed into disliking the show. No - they read the 'forthright' opinions and agreed with them. Maybe they would have enjoyed the show if they hadn't read the opinions, but that doesn't mean that 'enjoying it' was a natural, pure and true reaction which was later corrupted by those nasty negativite opinions. If some people were influenced by the ranting on here, it's because they read the arguments, thought 'Hmmm they've got a point', and came up with a viewpoint of their own.

What's a 'rounded' opinion anyway? One that isn't passionate?

Would you have had the same objection if Nathan Barley had been praised to the skies on here instead of given a kicking? Would you have said 'Stop being so forthright in your positivity - you'll influence people's views'?

In the past, you see, I've claimed that lots of people were tricked into liking The Office - that the hype was so widespread that they were convinced a mediocre show was excellent. This is normally (and understandably) dismissed as a patronising view. But how is it dfferent to your insistence that people were tricked into hating Nathan Barley?

You seem to be over-dramatising my opinion into an 'insistence'. The latter is, I think, a statement persistently repeated even in the face of comments to the contrary, whereas what I said wasn't. It was stated once, then I conceded somewhat to Neil when he replied and explained his position.

Incidentally, I had no wish to insult newbies and if that was misunderstood from what I said that's a pity. I didn't say anyone was 'brainwashed', or 'tricked' into disliking it after reading the site's opinion on it, you're exaggerating what I said quite a bit there.

I merely said it would have been interesting to see if the reaction had been any different had the site restricted its pre-tranmission comments to describing what was in the show, rather than slating it.   And I still wonder about that. But Neil gave his opinion of why he said what he said, and I accepted it, so going over this again is pretty pointless.

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: "Emergency Lalla Ward Ten"I don't think the real Comedy Awards is very constructive - giving awards to people who are already media darlings. At least The Tumbleweeds makes a  statement.

Again, what I said here has already been dealt with. Perhaps you haven't read the whole thread so I'll summarise what happened. Neil replied to explain that the choices were voted on by site members, and I said I didnt know that. I had thought the list of nominees were Neil's, based on his opinion, so on finding out differently I again conceded considerably. So, again, its pretty pointless dredging this up. ;)

Janek's Little Black Box

Quote from: "David Qunt"...it would have been interesting to see if the reaction had been any different had the site restricted its pre-tranmission comments to describing what was in the show, rather than slating it.   And I still wonder about that.
It's extremely interesting to think about how knowing anything about a piece of fiction may affect your reaction to it. I personally believe that, in the case of comedy on television, it's easier to convince someone that a programme is funny than to lessen that effect, but that's not to say the latter isn't possible or that the concern is unfounded.

Regarding 'Nathan Barley', however, I don't think that any of it applies since, in my opinion, the point was not to enjoy it or to find it funny, but instead to celebrate the fact that it was made at all, and by Morris; how he of all people, so immersed in the culture, had the guts to say 'Look, all this stuff really isn't very good is it?'

It was because of his involvement and influence that it was unique as a programme that really could have hoodwinked it's fans into looking a little bit harder into the mirror than usual.

But the last thing anyone involved with 'Nathan Barley' wanted was for the situation to improve, and it wouldn't have mattered if there had been a feature on the News every night for a month before the programme aired entitled 'Nathan Barley: It's Well Rubbish' because the fact is it wasn't supposed to be a comedy, or enjoyed, just celebrated either by praise or condemnation.

However, 'Nathan Barley' could still be described as a little hole in the duvet of modern culture, so that immersing oneself in that culture has become slightly less comfortable.

Was this in part done by casting actors thought similar to their satirical targets? I've got a horrible feeling this is exactly what Morris and Brooker believe they did, which is also frustrating since doing that properly would have been so fantastic. Morris should have cast his own friends, and himself, and given them all exactly what they deserved. The duvet should have been set on fire and thrown away.

I don't think all this is anything new, though. In the final analysis, if the comedians and satirists of Britain over the past forty years or so were standing in front of a big red button that would make all the complacent, nasty, vindictive, hypocritical, vacuous rubbish go away forever, leaving a varied and interesting cultural and political environment at last, do you really think any of them would dream of pressing it? Or would they instead just start pointing and giggling because they just find the whole idea of a big red button that could do all of that, kind of pathetically funny, you know, the actual idea of it, the absurdity of it, in fact they've always just sort of found big red buttons quite funny, like when they were at school, buttons on clothing, the way they look, you know, almost absurd, just there, so incongruous, the idea of not pressing it, as well, would have a sort of absurdist dynamic to it, a subconscious dynamic.

Cookd and Bombd have a truly excellent opportunity to do something fantastic with the Tumbleweed Awards. At the moment it may seem similar in intent to other anti-awards to do with branches of the media, but this is due to the speed with which it has had to have been put together. With hard work and commitment, neither of which are in short supply, they will surely become a reasoned, vital weapon with which to engage the armies of comedians who believe they are modern philosophers rather than jesters.

But hang on, what if the comedians suddenly work it all out? That they don't know their arses from their elbows and start concentrating on being funny rather than making points and telling people how to behave? To stop commenting and start writing jokes instead, and so make something like the Tumbleweed Awards seem completely irrelevant?

Don't make me laugh.

sarahd

guys, if you don't like Chris Morris or Nathan Barley or whatever, why keep going on about it? why go on thinking up ever more sophistaced arguments to explain why you don't like it, it's just wasting time when you could be writing something better, I really don't want to upset any of you but, is it all really that important? You all seem like very talented individuals and it just appears like a bit of a waste to me

A Passing Turk Slipper

Well why talk about any hobby in any detail? Because it's enjoyable and interesting. A lot of people here are passionate about comedy, and that's why they talk about it, be it good comedy or shit comedy. It's 'important' in the same way that any of your hobbies or interests are important to you. You make out that we base our lives around how much we don't like certain programs which is, well, rubbish. The comedy forum has more threads on shows people like rather than on shows people hate, believe it or not.

Slackboy

Quote from: "sarahd"guys, if you don't like Chris Morris or Nathan Barley or whatever, why keep going on about it? why go on thinking up ever more sophistaced arguments to explain why you don't like it, it's just wasting time when you could be writing something better, I really don't want to upset any of you but, is it all really that important? You all seem like very talented individuals and it just appears like a bit of a waste to me
Hi sarahd, I think the standard response to this is something like "why do you care enough to write that post when you have something better to do?" (or is it "this is a forum for discussion of comedy so what do you expect us to do?"?)

Either way I think Janek's is a bit weird, as usual I can't be arsed to elaborate on that, but that's probably because I'm normal.

sarahd

Quote from: "A Passing Turk Slipper"Well why talk about any hobby in any detail? Because it's enjoyable and interesting. A lot of people here are passionate about comedy, and that's why they talk about it, be it good comedy or shit comedy.
yeah, i see what you mean but, i dunno, it just strikes me that if all the energy put into formulating incredibly complicated arguments to basically say 'i liked it' or 'i didn't like it', if you're not being paid, is nothing but a big waste of time.

Quote from: "Slackboy"I think Janek's is a bit weird
I wasn't referring to them specifically - although you're right, seems like a case of wannabe journo to me ;)

Slackboy

I used to be of the opinion that the only people that should analyse comedy are the ones who are planning on writing some themselves. Now I'm not so sure about that, since I think my opinions and enjoyment of comedy have developed a lot after arguing about them on here for as long as I have. Having said that I do very often get the feeling (and all too often state it explicitly) that posting in here is just a huge waste of time since it just seems that most people leave the site with the same opinions that they came in with, albeit in most cases more fortified through defiance. I got the feeling sarahd that you were about to be accused of saying something that's been said a million times before (because to be honest you did), but trust me the regulars do that plenty and they don't even have the excuse of being new.

Janek's: Apologises for being rude to a newbie, but I really do think that you are looking at the world the wrong way. I think Morris and Brooker treated the so-called targets of NB with a great deal of respect and honesty and it probably made a lot of them think for the first time ever. I think people who think that comedy should be about making a certain target feel bad about itself for the amusement of the rest of us have a very narrow sense of comedy and humanity in general. NB attacked the Barleys but it also did a great job of showing them where they were going wrong. I'm not sure if that really is a response to your posts by the way, I've only really scanned them so far.

Neil: Apologies if this is explained elsewhere, but what's going on with the sign-ups now? Are people allowed to join CC and GD now or are there still too many members, and if so why not just delete everyone who hasn't posted within the last two years to make space? Is it related to the hacking attempts that you had to deal with a while back?

mayer

Quote from: "sarahd"it just strikes me that if all the energy put into formulating incredibly complicated arguments to basically say 'i liked it' or 'i didn't like it', if you're not being paid, is nothing but a big waste of time.

Like five-a-side football, fucking, or writing poetry?

Criticism and/or writing in general, and discussion, are valid hobbies in themselves, you don't need to be a paid prostitute to validate screwing, so why dyou need to be a paid journo to validate criticism/writing?

Slackboy

I'd think I'd rather be fucking than writing this. And playing football or writing poetry seem like good ways to increase my chances of fucking sometime in the near future, while this doesn't.

Yep, I'm erring towards the "big waste of time" end of the scale personally.