Cookd and Bombd - Nathan Barley (2005) Discussion

[–] DJSolidSnail 19 years ago

I take it that you're grossly overexaggerating for comic effect and trotting out certain typical ridiculous arguments in order to parody those who do use them...? If so, well done. That sort of nonsense is really rather annoying.

Edit: That is what you're doing, isn't it?

reply

[–] EvilDeadII 19 years ago

Most folks there think it makes them look cool to hate NB. Yet they all watched it, and secretly some like it and pretend not to so they fit in. Joke is on them.

Oh and apparently the other criteria for "cool" is to prefer Blue Jam to Jam and say the Brasseye Special isn't funny.

Tossers.

reply

[–] DJSolidSnail 19 years ago

Bloody hell, I hope you're joking too...

*sigh* Well, if not, then yes, the general consensus there is that Nathan Barley wasn't very good (it clearly isn't). And that Blue Jam was better than Jam (it obviously is). And that the Brass Eye Special wasn't funny (don't subscribe to that one myself, though it is inferior to the original series). The people there are there because they share a common interest, and they share similar tastes, so yes, they're going to agree on some things. But it's ridiculous to say that people there think what they think 'to be cool.' What kind of reasoning is that? You could apply that to anyone who has any sort of opinion on anything.

Yet they all watched it, and secretly some like it and pretend not to so they fit in. Joke is on them.
You're trying to be funny, aren't you?

reply

[–] film_geek 19 years ago

C&B is freqented by sycophantic plebs who are scared to disagree with eachother and be excluded from the Old Boy's club.

http://chilled.cream.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9566

mature thread, eh ? That TJ seems like a total tosspot.

reply

[–] DJSolidSnail 19 years ago

C&B is freqented by sycophantic plebs who are scared to disagree with eachother and be excluded from the Old Boy's club.

No it isn't. Clearly you've read two or three Nathan Barley threads, noticed that there is something of a consensus that the show wasn't very good and now consider yourself qualified enough to understand the intentions of every single person who said they didn't like it.

I don't even know why I'm bothering answering this - you disagree with the opinions of certain members on a certain website, so come up with a nonsensical explanation as to why they don't agree with you. Oh, of course it couldn't be their actual opinions! There has to be some reason for why they say they don't like it!

Your post shows no actual knowledge of the members of C&B - 'sycophantic' is hardly an accurate way of describing them. Sycophantic is this sort of vomit-inducing drivel, from an IMDB review:

Morris is a dark, dark, dark writer. A very funny writer too, and far, far more intelligent than 99.9% of his audience. That he lets any of us peasants see his work is a miracle, and we should be thankful for whatever he gives us.

Which is exactly the sort of attitude you get on this website. Along with people who come along to say 'you don't get it.'

Unless of course you mean the sycophantic to each other, which doesn't make sense and doesn't deserve a response. Mutual sycophancy? Why? No-one does anything like that on C&B, and I see no reason why they would. The moderators and administrators are on equal terms with everyone else, in terms of posting.

Nobody's scared to disagree with one another - they do it all the time. Of course you wouldn't really know that, having not read any of it.

There is no 'Old Boy's Club.' I don't know why you'd think there is. Many of the same people often post there, like every other forum on the Internet.

And I assume you've just lumped 'plebs' in there because you wanted to feature some sort of insult, though have given no thought whatsoever to what it actually means.

http://chilled.cream.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9566

mature thread, eh ?

A reaction to the overwhelmingly positive reviews on Amazon and IMDB and the suchlike, with incomprehensibly large amounts of people clicking that 'useful' button, despite the distinct lack of objectivity, and the irritating sycophancy inherent in all of them, with equally high numbers immediately shooting down more negative, though more intelligent, well thought-out and indeed useful reviews. So why not?

That TJ seems like a total tosspot.

'Seems' being the crucial word. It's impossible to judge just from having read a couple of comments at most. And he isn't, anyway.

reply

[–] film_geek 19 years ago

I did mean sycophantic to eachother - not Morris. And Im sorry, but I really dont think that you do "get it".

reply

[–] DJSolidSnail 19 years ago

Well you're wrong, because they're not. I still don't understand why you'd think that - perhaps because you haven't bothered to explain why. And would you care to tell me why you don't think I 'get it'? And don't start ranting on about the 'Morris is Ashcroft' subtext as if this is some incredibly subtle thing that only true fans have noticed, because if you'd bothered to check C&B you'd see that the members picked up on it after reading the press release back in January or whenever it was. In fact, do rant. Argue away. I get the impression that you don't feel terribly passionate about the show, and seem to just be answering those who disagree with you in those horrible clichéd 'you just don't understand it' terms without any proper points to back it up.

Note to everyone: If you ever want to win an argument over someone who disagrees with you over the quality of something - you think it's good, they don't - then simply tell them they 'don't get it' without explaining what on Earth you mean. If they ask for an exaplanation, tell them they wouldn't even begin to understand because they're incapable of comprehending such complex art. This will give them a throbbing, overwhelming feeling of inadaquecy, and hopefully they will accept the fact that the fact that they didn't like the programme is through their own fault - they were simply not intelligent enough to understand it. It's bollocks, because the show is not at all deep or profound and does not offer any message that's not already been said before, but it will give you the chance to be able to say that the programme's good without any fear of argument.

Of course, to use an obvious example, these sort of defensive arguments are much like those of the last two Matrix films. People say, 'The story wasn't very good, was it? Or the dialogue, or the characters, or the pacing, or any of the other important things?' and the fans stretch themselves silly looking for arguments to respond to these, telling them, 'Yes but what about the philosophical subtext?' which basically comes down to 'They use names from the Bible and Greek mythology!!'

Is there really a certain 'it' in Nathan Barley that is the key to enjoying it as a comedy programme? Do all the jokes suddenly become funny? To the under-written characters suddenly become excellent, original, three-dimensional beings? Do the plots become well thought-out with nice pay-offs? I would assume so, the way you talk about it. Go on, tell me: WHAT IS THE ' IT ' ?

reply

[–] DJSolidSnail 19 years ago

Ah. He's sodded off. Oh well.

reply

[–] film_geek 19 years ago

I explained my thoughts previously on this thread:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0606439/board/thread/26374121?d=26374121#26374121

I just cant be bothered to repeat it all again, its pointless since you think that NB is objectively bad. How can I argue against that ?
I'd rather just agree to disagree.

reply

[–] DJSolidSnail 19 years ago

You mean the thread containing the debate which you abandoned having not answered my last post? Anyway, this has nothing to do with that - in that thread you were bashing C&B; the merits of Nathan Barley were seldom touched upon. In this context it's completely irrelevant, in fact. Well, in terms of the quality of Nathan Barley, of course. I'm not really bothered about your comments on C&B any more, because they too are quite meaningless since you've shown you don't really know what you're talking about and no longer seem to care.

Might I assume then that when you say that I 'don't get it,' it's an empty, meaningless comment, since you've chosen not to back it up with anything? In other words it's just 'something people say'?

its pointless since you think that NB is objectively bad. How can I argue against that ?
Quite easily, I should think, if you really feel that the show is genuinely good. Yes, I do think that Nathan Barley is objectively bad, and I have explained what is objectively bad about it. But that's what all debates are about. You can hardly argue over something using only subjectivity, it would essentially boil down to this: 'I thought it was good.' 'Oh. I didn't.' 'Right. That's that sorted then.'

Don't you find it much more interesting when someone comes along and says, 'I didn't think that was very good because...'

I'm yet to find someone who's said, about Nathan Barley, 'I thought it was good because...' I don't think they exist.

I'd rather just agree to disagree.
Well of course you would. You 'quite liked' some programme or other when you see it on TV... you discover a group of people who didn't like it, although give reasons for why they don't like it... you ignore these reasons, because clearly they're saying they don't like the show just to get at you, and they're probably just being cynical for the sake of it... oh yes, there must be some sort of mutual masturbation thing going on as well, of course, why else would the only people in the world who didn't like Nathan Barley all be holed up in the same place (possibly because not many people liked it!)... why else would they have opinions contrary to mine? because they're being cynical for the sake of it, of course!... I'll make unfounded made-up derogatory comments about them because they don't agree with me... I feel much better about myself now and have defended the honour of my can-do-no-wrong hero Christopher 'God-Like F u c k i n g Genius' Morris... blah blah blah e t f u c k i n g c e t e r a . . .

We're hardly disagreeing. I'm saying I don't like it and reasons for that. You're not saying anything, just that C&B is sh*t, I 'don't get it' and that you don't agree with me. Nothing else whatsoever. You don't actually like Nathan Barley, do you? By this point it just seems that you're disagreeing for the sake of it. That's true, isn't it?

reply

[–] Let_Sleeping_Corpses_Lie 19 years ago

Thurston needs a good lie down. He sounds like someone suffering from a mental illness. Print out his last post and read it aloud -- the level of delusion is staggering. Let's all hold hands and fear for his sanity.

reply

[–] film_geek 19 years ago

Indeed, its quite outstanding how he can ramble on for so long without making a single point. That's talent.

OK, Thurston. I found NB funny because it is a very accurate and funny representaion of the sycophantic, slimy, talentless 20-somethings that are all too common in England. I've seen so many parallels between characters in NB and people Ive known in real life. Shallow individuals who are only concerned with appearing to be cool in front of their tribe. And to me, that was funny. I suppose if somebody doesn't know many NB-esque characters, or if they are too close to the personality of NB himself, then they may fail to grasp the comedy.

I felt from reading C&B that many people were expecting "gags" from NB. I was expecting an attack on the people I despise, and thats what I thankfully got.

reply

[–] DJSolidSnail 19 years ago

Thurston needs a good lie down. He sounds like someone suffering from a mental illness. Print out his last post and read it aloud -- the level of delusion is staggering. Let's all hold hands and fear for his sanity.
Oh, wonderful. Another wave of meaningless insults. I notice you haven't said what's delusional about what I've said, or why I am apparently 'insane' - not that you'd know, of course (I presume you're not a psychiatrist), and you say it as if telling someone they've got an mental illness when they haven't is quite clever and original and funny. I think you've probably said that because I'm actually arguing *why* I didn't like something rather than just lazily spewing out 'I didn't like it' which would be completely pointless and irrelevant to everybody else.

Indeed, its quite outstanding how he can ramble on for so long without making a single point. That's talent.
Even though that isn't at all witty, you've said it in quite a witty way, so well done for that. Again, it's meaningless, as I have made numerous points, while you're barely saying anything, alternating between telling me you don't agree with me although not explaining why and constantly insulting me for not agreeing with you.

I felt from reading C&B that many people were expecting "gags" from NB. I was expecting an attack on the people I despise, and thats what I thankfully got.
It's a comedy programme. Of course people should expect jokes. Just under three hours of "They're idiots! Do you see?!" is not a comedy programme - it is not clever or interesting and does not grant its audience with much intelligence, choosing instead to repeatedly remind them that these characters are idiots, through 'DAN REACTS' and 'CLAIRE REACTS' shots.

Knowing the types parodied in the show might make the comedy more enjoyable to you, as obviously you can relate to it a little more and I suppose it would make the whole experience slightly more satisfying, but it doesn't say anything about the actual quality of the comedy.

Besides, you refer to the show as if it were an amazing, groundbreaking and controversial satire of this world of 'idiots,' but really it didn't do much that hadn't been done before, and its impact was incredibly small both critically (almost all comedy journalists are awful anyway, but in this case they wrote a number of articles before the show had started, and then after that went very, very quiet) and, I suppose, 'financially' (second worst Friday night 10.00-10.30PM ratings in Channel 4's history wasn't it?). Either way, it wasn't important or neccesary, I don't think, and to be fair it was very weak as both a sitcom and as a satire.

But if you liked it, that's great. I'm happy for you. Just don't insult me for wanting to increase the level of comedy debate from 'I didn't like it' to 'I didn't like it because...' Just because I've come on here to say that I didn't like it doesn't mean I'm an attention-seeking bridge-dwelling person who's just out looking to provoke people into angry reactions by saying 'this is rubbish.'

reply

[–] film_geek 19 years ago

"Knowing the types parodied in the show might make the comedy more enjoyable to you, as obviously you can relate to it a little more and I suppose it would make the whole experience slightly more satisfying, but it doesn't say anything about the actual quality of the comedy. "

Yes, but as I said, to me this does make the comedy work. This has been my point from the very beginning. Liking something is purely subjective.

"Besides, you refer to the show as if it were an amazing, groundbreaking and controversial satire of this world of 'idiots,'"

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a groundbreaking or controversial show at all, just one that I enjoyed.

"(second worst Friday night 10.00-10.30PM ratings in Channel 4's history wasn't it?). "

That doesnt bother me in the slightest.

"But if you liked it, that's great. I'm happy for you."

Thanks, I'm happy that you are happy for me.

"Just because I've come on here to say that I didn't like it doesn't mean I'm an attention-seeking bridge-dwelling person who's just out looking to provoke people into angry reactions by saying 'this is rubbish.' "

Im very glad that you didn't take the C&B webmasters approach.

reply

[–] DJSolidSnail 19 years ago

Yes, but as I said, to me this does make the comedy work. This has been my point from the very beginning. Liking something is purely subjective.
That's perfectly fine. Of course, something being good is purely objective.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a groundbreaking or controversial show at all, just one that I enjoyed.
Well, I did say 'as if it were' - it's just that your praise of the show struck me as a little hyperbolic.

Im very glad that you didn't take the C&B webmasters approach.
'Rubbish' was indeed the word Neil used, but he wasn't setting out to anger the Nathan Barley fans - of which there would have been zero at that point anyway, since the show hadn't gone out yet. It was targeted at the regulars. We've gone over this, though, I think.

Thanks, I'm happy that you are happy for me.
This pleases me.

That doesnt bother me in the slightest.
I didn't say it did. How it affects you is hardly important, though. You're slipping back into 'subjective' territory again.

reply

[–] backoffbrussels 18 years ago

Thurstonlowe you really are a classic, I started this thread as a joke because I wondered if any pseudo intellectual, manic depressives from C&B would take offenc.

I've met plenty real life Nathan's in my time and that's why I think this show is brilliant as it seems to me that Chris Morris has broken the last rule and turned on his own fans. Now that is funny...

As my old mom would say me thinks that you protest to much!

"(You're) nothing but an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect the bill."

reply

[–] DJSolidSnail 18 years ago

I was hoping it was a joke. The only way in which Chris Morris has 'turned' on his fans is that he's now producing sh*t comedy.

reply

[–] joshhomme-1 18 years ago

I personally loved NB, BE Special and Jam (I'm yet to hear Blue Jam apart from the My Wrongs stuff). But not everyone has to like the same bloody thing. Thurstonlowe is entitled to his opinions and I have no problem with them. I don't get upset when someone rubbishes something I like. Some people need to relax.

You; blow me, now.

reply

[–] rody_mitchell 18 years ago

Actually I completely disagree with this comment. I think it's far easier to sit down and come up with a list of reasons for why you think something isn't good - generally these lists tend to contain references to technical details regarding comedy writing and directorial techniques etc. (and this is certainly true of many of the anti-Barley posts I've read on C&B) which is fair enough if that kind of stuff is important to you. I do exactly the same thing when I watch something I don't like - it's a lot of fun to sit and take the piss out of something, and it makes me feel intelligent and superior. But I DO like Nathan Barley, simply because I find it funny. To be honest I think the reason is that can see so much of the idiots around me, and of course of myself, in the characters in this show. I know plenty Barleys, and am myself prone to Barleyism from time to time. However I also love to believe that I am smarter than everyone else and that only I can see the idiocy that goes on around me, and in these moments I like to empathise with Dan. Of course the point of the show is that they're all idiots, just in different ways, and this is what I love most about it - because I am self-aware enough to realise when I'm being an idiot, and I love laughing at myself. Is Nathan Barley the greatest tv show ever written? Certainly not, and anyone who claims so is a fool. Does it rate with Morris' best work? Again, not at all, although I get the impression this was more Charlie Brooker's work anyway so maybe such a comparison is inappropriate. It is, however, an entertaining piece of television, which is all I ever expected from it.

reply

[–] bordellos 18 years ago

I'm Nathan Barley?
No,you are. You are the sushi eating *beep* typing out drivel on a useless keyboard probably at work.
If you like Nathan Barley,go bury yourself.
Personal taste is okay, but you're clearly not.

C@B is a site that unlike this does not censor what is said for use of swearing. I may have even gone to the efffort of typing beep surrounded by two * * but that's for you to decide.
And if I did, that still doesn't stop you from being a beep.

reply

[–] binhead-943-235610 13 years ago

lol

You are Barley though, aren't you. I find you funny. :)

reply

[–] Munglar 18 years ago

I think it's just that because Chris Morris' comedy is different and quite intellectual he's attracted a load of fans who like stuff that's different and intellectual and people like that are usually wankers.

reply