Nathan Barley

Post by **Best First** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:32 pm

Hmm. I quite enjoyed it. Not always laugh out loud funny but Morris's abuse of language and culture is a pleasure to behold.

and then i enjoyed the adverts for the wasp T12 even more.

Peace and **** it. Believe.

Death's Head · Post by **Death's Head** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:41 am

Well ******* futile.

Quick game of cock, muff, bumhole?

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:41 am

Billed as a comedy, I now feel very shortchanged. What crap. As the song lyric goes, "Standards are falling, values have dropped." People will put up with anything it seems, and give particular leeway to 'godlike jeeeenusses' like Chris Morris.

Face it, "Nathan Barley" was a poor offering. At it's core, a comedy should make you laugh i.e. have plenty good jokes. And that's the primary thing that N.B. is lacking - one or two smirks per half hour episode is awful. "Nathan Barley" has the 'situation', but is sorely lacking in the 'comedy'.

I can't say I know much about Charlie Brooker apart from his TVGoHome offering, but I do know now that I hope Morris does not collaborate with him again on future comedy projects.

.

<tongue-in-cheek>Nathan Barley. The Dreamwave Productions of TV comedy.</tongue-in-cheek>

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:45 am

Dead Head wrote:At it's core, a comedy should make you laugh

Actually, at its core, a comedy is something with a happy ending. Being that there are two types of play - a comedy or a tragedy.

Think how many jokes there are in Shakespeare's comedies. Yeah, exactly.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:54 am

Death's Head wrote:Quick game of cock, muff, bumhole?

You're about the 20th person to say that to me this week

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:13 pm

Brendocon wrote:
Dead Head wrote:At it's core, a comedy should make you laugh
Actually, at its core, a comedy is something with a happy ending. Being that there are two types of play - a comedy or a tragedy.

You are being facetious. We are very obviously talking about a comedy in it's distinctly humorous definition.

COMEDY:
"
1. Popular entertainment composed of jokes, satire, or humorous performance.
2. A dramatic work that is light and often humorous or satirical in tone and that usually contains a happy resolution of the thematic conflict.
"

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:30 pm

Dead Head wrote:You are being facetious.

And you are stating the obvious.

You're also quoting a definition without citing the source. I can do that, too. Look:

"BRENDOCON

1. Me
2. Your god"

See?

Even by your "Popular entertainment composed of jokes, satire, or humorous performance" definition, it's still a comedy. Because you admitted earlier that it contains "one or two smirks" which qualifies it as humorous.

I'd also draw your attention to the use of the word "or" in the definition. It infers that "comedy" does not need to contain all three (jokes, satire or humorous performances), so long as it contains one. Just because it doesn't make you laugh doesn't mean it's not a comedy. As supported your own definition.

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:44 pm

Hadn't even heard of it until this topic came up.

The Day Today and Brass Eye were fantastic, and in my opinion, Jam was utter *****-is NB better than Jam, or am I the only one that thinks Jam was rubbish?

Post by **Best First** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:05 pm

Dead Head wrote:People will put up with anything it seems, and give particular leeway to 'godlike jeeeenusses' like Chris Morris.

Face it, "Nathan Barley" was a poor offering.

mmm, being patronising sure makes those opinions easier to swallow.

I was actually expecting it to be crap, but found it odlly compelling. Fairly certain i'm allowed to think that, thanks.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:58 pm

Best First wrote:I was actually expecting it to be crap, but found it odlly compelling.

Like "Nathan Barley", train wrecks can be oddly compelling, but doesn't make them in any way savory.

I for one don't want a proggy billed as a comedy to be merely 'oddly compelling' if ultimately it is largely devoid of much humor. Morris' previous radio work and TDT/BE/BES were simply marvellous pieces of comedy. I wouldn't want or expect him to revisit those pieces, styles, or topics, but I do expect that his new work would have the same quantity and quality of humor. This is not the case with "Nathan Barley". It strikes me, judging by episode one, as a ho-hum drama with one or two comedic elements, and not as the intended comedic TV vehicle for the exploits of the Hoxton character from TVGoHome. It is a bad misfire by Morris/Brooker in that regard.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:04 pm

Brendocon wrote:<snip>

Stop fighting the definitions straw-man.

The real point made was that "Nathan Barley" is a 'comedy comedy' (for want of a term) which fails to have a lot of great humor in it. As such, it fails. Time will tell if the series as a whole is a waste.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:23 pm

Dead Head wrote:
Best First wrote:I was actually expecting it to be crap, but found it odlly compelling.
Like "Nathan Barley", train wrecks can be oddly compelling, but doesn't make them in any way savory.

I for one don't want a proggy billed as a comedy to be merely 'oddly compelling' if ultimately it is largely devoid of much humor. Morris' previous radio work and TDT/BE/BES were simply marvellous pieces of comedy. I wouldn't want or expect him to revisit those pieces, styles, or topics, but I do expect that his new work would have the same quantity and quality of humor. This is not the case with "Nathan Barley". It strikes me, judging by episode one, as a ho-hum drama with one or two comedic elements, and not as the intended comedic TV vehicle for the exploits of the Hoxton character from TVGoHome. It is a bad misfire by Morris/Brooker in that regard.

blah blah

i didn't say anything about what it was billed as. I stated i quite enjoyed it.

if you didn't enjoy it fair enough, but all you actually appear to be doing is staring down your nose at people for not sharing your opinion. skip to the end.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:27 pm

Dead Head wrote:Stop fighting the definitions

Ha. I love how you're accusing me of "fighting the definitions" when what I actually did was use your own definition to undermine your ridiculously flimsy argument.

I can't speak for the program, but you're great comedy. Chuckles galore at this end.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:45 pm

Heh, I fought the definitions - AND WON!!!

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:19 pm

Best First wrote:blah blah

I stated i quite enjoyed it.

Why did you enjoy the first episode? It was billed as a comedy and overall only had a paltry few average bits of humor. That's key.

Presuming it wasn't the weak and sparse humor you enjoyed, might it have been the drama and/or the characterization? If so, then that side of it was nothing extraordinary. By that logic, Jasper Carrott's "All About Me" would also be bearable if we ignored the lack of funny moments ('oh, that little thing') and were happy to follow the simple storylines/characterization.

So, why did you enjoy N.B. episode 1?

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:23 pm

Dead Head wrote:...By that logic, Jasper Carrott's "My Family" would also be bearable if we ignored the lack of funny moments ('oh, that little thing') and were happy to follow the simple storylines/characterization.

Isn't 'My Family' the one with Robert Lindsay and Zoe Wannamaker? The Jasper Carrott one is called 'All About Me'. [/pedant]

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:33 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:Isn't 'My Family' the one with Robert Lindsay and Zoe Wannamaker? The Jasper Carrott one is called 'All About Me'. [/pedant]

Correct. That's the one I meant.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:37 pm

Brendocon wrote:
Dead Head wrote:Stop fighting the definitions straw-man.
I can't speak for the program, but you're great comedy.

Then you didn't see the program? The primary point of discussion as I have previously worded is that a program listed as something funny (not to mention the inference of the past productions of it's two main writers) turned out, in it's first episode at least, to be something very lacklustre in the humor department. It didn't fulfill this central criterion. So if you didn't see the program, then you are wilfully debating a small side topic of no relevance to the big flashing 'funny or not' question.

If you have seen the first episode of "Nathan Barley", then tell what you thought of it.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:12 pm

Dead Head wrote:
Best First wrote:blah blah

I stated i quite enjoyed it.
Why did you enjoy the first episode? It was billed as a comedy and overall only had a paltry few average bits of humor. That's key.

according to... you.

Sorry to dissapoint you - but i didn't really approach it with any preconvieved notions as to what it would be like due to it being a 'comedy'. I didn't think go in there with a 'billed as comedy, must do this' check list.

As for why i already stated (in, hmm, my initial post) "Morris's abuse of language and culture is a pleasure to behold". I got a lot of pleasure just listening to the mangled language Morris had many of the characters spout. I also enjoyed the curmedgeonly downfall of Dan Ashcroft and the way he exhuded loathing to all around him. Plus its quotable as hell.

Feel free to keep trying to pigeonhole why i should take some pleasure from the program, or trying to tell me that i did not in fact enjoy this, but fact is i liked it and the other fact is that when discussing such things the ideal way to do it isn't to rock into the debate being a patronising arse.

What is key is i watched it and took pleasure from doing so - nothing else.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:51 pm

Best First wrote:according to... you.

Naturally. I don't employ a ghostwriter.

Best First wrote:i didn't really approach it with any preconvieved notions as to what it would be like due to it being a 'comedy'.

I did not approach the comedy with any preconcieved notions as to what it would be like, except that whatever it turned out to be, I hoped it would be very funny.

Best First wrote:As for why i already stated (in, hmm, my initial post) "Morris's abuse of language and culture is a pleasure to behold".

It was in the past, but less so in "Nathan Barley". While it is interesting that he has moved into producing something a little more straightforward, it is a cold comfort, given that the 'morrisisms' apparent in NB are jarring and contrived (notwithstanding the 'idiot' sources from whence they came), and the 'media type' characters he has chosen to lampoon are easy targets who make for short material.

Best First wrote:I got a lot of pleasure just listening to the mangled language Morris had many of the characters spout. I also enjoyed the curmedgeonly downfall of Dan Ashcroft and the way he exhuded loathing to all around him. Plus its quotable as hell.

The 'Dan Ashcroft' character is more filled out than his co-workers, but the first episode largely had him huming and hawing which overworked the point of his discontent for too long.

Best First wrote: Plus its quotable as hell.

The occasional 'quotable' is fine, but NB seems determined to push these in a very contrived, obvious fashion. Much like "Yeah, I know" and "I'm a lady" were bludgeoned into the masses' conciousness by Walliams and Lucas. Such playing to the gallery gets old really quickly. Such things would only be a lesser criticism however, if the main character situation setups on the whole were very funny and occured more often.

Death's Head · Post by **Death's Head** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:15 pm

It's like CookdandBombd over here!

HoistKeeper 2.0 · Post by **HoistKeeper 2.0** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:00 am

Watched it and personally didn't find it that funny. But at least it's not as bad as any cac that Sacha Baron puts out.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:35 am

Dead Head wrote:
Best First wrote:according to... you.
Naturally. I don't employ a ghostwriter.

Best First wrote:i didn't really approach it with any preconvieved notions as to what it would be like due to it being a 'comedy'.
I did not approach the comedy with any preconcieved notions as to what it would be like, except that whatever it turned out to be, I hoped it would be very funny.

Best First wrote:As for why i already stated (in, hmm, my initial post) "Morris's abuse of language and culture is a pleasure to behold".
It was in the past, but less so in "Nathan Barley". While it is interesting that he has moved into producing something a little more straightforward, it is a cold comfort, given that the 'morrisisms' apparent in NB are jarring and contrived (notwithstanding the 'idiot' sources from whence they came), and the 'media type' characters he has chosen to lampoon are easy targets who make for short material.

Best First wrote:I got a lot of pleasure just listening to the mangled language Morris had many of the characters spout. I also enjoyed the curmedgeonly downfall of Dan Ashcroft and the way he exhuded loathing to all around him. Plus its quotable as hell.
The 'Dan Ashcroft' character is more filled out than his co-workers, but the first episode largely had him huming and hawing which overworked the point of his discontent for too long.

Best First wrote: Plus its quotable as hell.
The occasional 'quotable' is fine, but NB seems determined to push these in a very contrived, obvious fashion. Much like "Yeah, I know" and "I'm a lady" were bludgeoned into the masses' conciousness by Walliams and Lucas. Such playing to the gallery gets old really quickly. Such things would only be a lesser criticism however, if the main character situation setups on the whole were very funny and occured more often.

sorry mate but all you appear to be doing is saying i didn't have the right to enjoy it (which... sorry! i did), missing the point that i wasn't really expecting to be rolling in the aisles and watched it out of curiosity and being a bit of a smug arse about it all. I've not seen you post like this before and i'm not sure why you are doing it now.

Or are you just pissed off that Dan Ashcroft seems to be a bit of a parody of you?

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:56 am

Best First wrote:you appear to be doing is saying i didn't have the right to enjoy it (which... sorry! i did)

I'm saying why I think that it was not very good television, and addressing your counterpoints individually.

Best First wrote:missing the point that i wasn't really expecting to be rolling in the aisles and watched it out of curiosity and being a bit of a smug arse about it all.

I didn't miss that point and I don't see how putting my views on NB ep. 1 negates your ability to provide further counterpoints to defend the program.

Best First wrote:Or are you just pissed off that Dan Ashcroft seems to be a bit of a parody of you?

Not at all. A prosaic suggestion.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:10 am

mmm, well i'm mainly distracted by your irritaing manner.

When someone states they enjoyed something the respone "Face it you are wrong" is a rather twatish manner in which to deliver your counterpoint, and have not had much interest in what you have had to say since that point. I can see why someone migt adopt this tone in the facr of, say, republicanism (ha!) but consiering we are just talking about a TV program you seem to be getting a little bit too excited.

Furthermore i don't consider a good debate to be me listing what i liked and then someone esentially quoting me and saying 'no that was not good' several times over. You are not going to change the fact that i quite enjoyed it and i feel no particulr compunction to defend that. Maybe you just didn't get it? Maybe, gosh, you have different tastes to me?

Or are you just pissed off that Dan Ashcroft seems to be a bit of a parody of you?
Not at all

its good to see with your immense knowledge of comedy that you are capable fo spotting sarcasm...

bored now.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:00 pm

Best First wrote:mmm, well i'm mainly distracted by your irritaing manner. When someone states they enjoyed something the respone "Face it you are wrong" is a rather twatish manner in which to deliver your counterpoint

So given that you like the program, then me hypothetically agreeing by typing 'Face it, "Nathan Barley" was a great offering' would have elicited in you a similar irritation? No. It wouldn't have been latched onto at all. More likely it would have been followed by a few back-and-forth posts saying "keep it foolish! LOL" and "alright m'niggah! ha hA".

Best First wrote:Furthermore i don't consider a good debate to be me listing what i liked and then someone esentially quoting me and saying 'no that was not good' several times over. You are not going to change the fact that i quite enjoyed it and i feel no particulr compunction to defend that. Maybe you just didn't get it? Maybe, gosh, you have different tastes to me?

A better discussion would have been for someone to expand upon to a reasonable degree what one thought was good/bad/indifferent and why one thought things worked or not, and similarly for the other discussers.

Rather than chuck out "blah blah" or "bored now" responses, it'd be better to respond with longer points to buttress your support of the program (not a one hundred page thesis, just a deal more insight into what and why you liked about 'Nathan Barley'). No doubt if it was to do with one of your central interests, Transformers comics, you would be capable and willing to dissect the plusses and/or minuses of the latest TF issue.

Best First wrote:capable fo spotting sarcasm...

That's not always clear in text form.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:04 pm

Dead Head wrote:
Best First wrote:mmm, well i'm mainly distracted by your irritaing manner. When someone states they enjoyed something the respone "Face it you are wrong" is a rather twatish manner in which to deliver your counterpoint
So given that you like the program, then me hypothetically agreeing by typing 'Face it, "Nathan Barley" was a great offering' would have elicited in you a similar irritation? No.

great mastery of concpet of context you have there.

sorry but your condescending contribution means that i remain rather uninterested in discussing this with you.

Plus i only 'quite liked' it - i'd be far more willing to go into depth on subjects that i care more about, but in this case its not really worth my while considering the attitude you are exuding which is rather getting on my tits - hence bored now, see?

Death's Head · Post by **Death's Head** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:50 pm

The strangest thing I found about the programme, and this could either be a failing or a success, was that for all his twattishness I found Nathan to be a fairly likeable character. Yeah he spouts rubbish (quotable rubbish to be sure, but then to quote it is to become like them surely....) and is quite clearly a fool but for some reason I warmed to him.

Dan Ashcroft too, but that's more of a given seeing as he's our window into the world of the idiots.

Perhaps people are coming to this with too many expectations? And I'm sure 'expectations' are something Chris Morris has no truck with.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:02 pm

i primarily liked the secretary... am i shallow?

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:25 pm

Best First wrote:sorry but your condescending contribution means that i remain rather uninterested in discussing this with you.

Said the stainless contributor. Me giving a thumbs down to the first episode of "Nathan Barley" did not and does not equate to giving a thumbs down to 'Best First'. You really should have concentrated on debating the points of the show rather than getting needlessly defensive and emotional. Thenceforth you've been incongruous with reasoned discussion of the show.

Best First wrote:i'd be far more willing to go into depth on subjects that i care more about, but in this case its not really worth my while considering the attitude you are exuding which is rather getting on my tits - hence bored now, see?

Then we're both bored. So you don't necessarily care much about comedy. That's fine. You've nothing more to say on NB? Fine. Different degrees of interests and all that. But I'm quite interested in this particular subject, and so it's not surprizing that I've commented in some length on this comedy topic you started.

Finally, while you're checking on my 'attitude', you'd want to check yours while you're at it. If anything, your posts here don't cast you in a good light at all, and they indeed should bore you equally.