There are just a handful of shows with people's full name in it though right? Let alone flop ones I can barely think of any shows that fit that criteria. So small sample size, etc.
Nathan Barley - Thoughts in retrospect? Page 2
I suppose Seinfeld breaks the rule too, except that people already knew who he was.
Garth Merenghi's Darkplace pretty much fits though, the word "Darkplace" doesn't do anything to tell you what it's about.
Quote: Maurice Moss @ July 27 2013, 7:16 PM BSTThere are just a handful of shows with people's full name in it though right? Let alone flop ones I can barely think of any shows that fit that criteria. So small sample size, etc.
And the reason there aren't many full name titles is generally they don't work. They're lazy, unimaginative, ugly and don't have the right cadence.
Quote: Raymond Terrific @ July 27 2013, 7:20 PM BSTI suppose Seinfeld breaks the rule too, except that people already knew who he was.
Garth Merenghi's Darkplace pretty much fits though, the word "Darkplace" doesn't do anything to tell you what it's about.
Seinfeld is just the surname. Call it Jerry Seinfeld and it doesn't work. Garth Merenghi has Darkplace tagged on the end, so it's not just the name on its own.
Yes but it still fits for the reason I mentioned (Darkplace wasn't popular).
I was defending your harebrained idea ffs. Both times!
Quote: Raymond Terrific @ July 27 2013, 7:40 PM BSTYes but it still fits for the reason I mentioned (Darkplace wasn't popular).
I was defending your harebrained idea ffs. Both times!
Ah! Although I disagree about Garth Merenghi's Darkplace. I think it's a great title. Like I'm Alan Partridge it tells you about the naked egotism of the central characters. I don't think the title in GMD's case explains why it didn't find an audience.
I think it's a great title now, having seen the show, but unlike KMKYWAP and "I'm Alan Partridge", it wasn't building off of a well known character. So while in retrospect it tells you about the character's egotism, to someone flicking through their TV guide it tells you nothing ("Darkplace" isn't exactly illuminating (pun not intended (ok I intended it a bit))).
@chipolata - dunno, that sounds a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc-ish to me 
I think probably makers tend to think something more than just the name, really - probably just names, that too long ones, doesn't sound that great in the first place mostly, IMO. What about I'm Alan Partridge then? If Darkplace doesn't tell you anything neither does Alan Partridge.
By the way I almost forgot - Jonathan Creek is another one 
Everyone knows exceptions prove the rule, the more of them you find the more the rule is proven.
This is well f**king futile. Back to the topic, yeah?
By the way, it's amusing how much of the technology has become mainstream now. Parts of it has course dated but many of them have become pretty common. Tablet for instance - was used at his stylists and at the Regime. Then there's 'f**king phones' to exchange phone numbers(?) which is pretty much similar to NFC.
Anything else that I've missed?
Quote: Maurice Moss @ July 28 2013, 8:57 AM BSTBy the way, it's amusing how much of the technology has become mainstream now. Parts of it has course dated but many of them have become pretty common. Tablet for instance - was used at his stylists and at the Regime. Then there's 'f**king phones' to exchange phone numbers(?) which is pretty much similar to NFC.
Anything else that I've missed?
Maybe the pranky videos he filmed and uploaded? People did it beofore YouTube but became a much bigger tihng since then.
Quote: Maurice Moss @ July 28 2013, 7:55 AM BSTThis is well f**king futile. Back to the topic, yeah?
Not really, because it tells you that if the makers weren't smart enough to come up with a good title them they probably weren't smart enough to come up with a good show. Which they weren't. Thankfully Charlie Brooker learnt from his mistake and would later come up with much better titles like Black Mirror and Dead Set.
Although thinking about "just name" titles Annie Hall's one and that's great. Although it has a far more poetic sound to it than the lumpy Nathan Barley.
Quote: chipolata @ July 28 2013, 11:13 AM BSTNot really, because it tells you that if the makers weren't smart enough to come up with a good title them they probably weren't smart enough to come up with a good show. Which they weren't.
Oh wow, you're way to serious about this whole title thing. Nathan Barley perfectly symbolises the world they're mocking, so it's fair enough that the name of the show was NB. I think you're exaggerating the importance of the title's relevance way too much IMO. What about Jonathan Creek? I love it. What about shows that have just first names in title? Say Luther? Or Mr. Bean? Or Blackadder? I don't think they're very "creative" either, doesn't reflect on its content does it?
Quote: Maurice Moss @ July 28 2013, 3:32 PM BSTWhat about Jonathan Creek? I love it. What about shows that have just first names in title? Say Luther? Or Mr. Bean? Or Blackadder? I don't think they're very "creative" either, doesn't reflect on its content does it?
One word names are a different matter entirely. As are ones with Mr or Mrs in front. Jonathan Creek's not bad because it's a better sounding name. Nathan Barley just sounds clunky. Barley might have worked better, although it's still a bit shit.
Also, names are important, I can't imagine Breaking Bad, The Sopranos or Mad Men having quite the same impact if they'd been called Walter White, Tony Soprano and Don Draper.
And quit whining, you should be grateful anybody's discussing anything on this thread!
Quote: chipolata @ July 29 2013, 10:57 AM BSTOne word names are a different matter entirely. As are ones with Mr or Mrs in front. Jonathan Creek's not bad because it's a better sounding name. Nathan Barley just sounds clunky. Barley might have worked better, although it's still a bit shit.
So what you actually mean is you don't like the name Nathan Barley? I don't see why it's shit at all. Also why are one words any more creative than two word sitcoms? Because I thought you were suggesting that the sitcoms with names like "Nathan Barley" reflects on lack of creativity? That was what I was responding to.
Also, names are important, I can't imagine Breaking Bad, The Sopranos or Mad Men having quite the same impact if they'd been called Walter White, Tony Soprano and Don Draper.
I can totally see those shows succeeding on their own merit. But now it would sound absurd to suggest anything else since we've associated well with the word and prefer them as they are. I used to go WTF at 30 Rock's title before I was into it, but now I can't think of any other title replacing it personally.
On the other hand, Arrested Development barely attracted the viewers that it deserved during its prime - and I thought that was a quality title.
And quit whining, you should be grateful anybody's discussing anything on this thread!
Wait what? Where exactly did I "whine"? So questioning your contentions is "whining" now? Um, I thought that was exactly the point of forum, to discuss things? Why am I obliged to agree with you again?
PS: I don't get paid or anything for people posting on this thread, so feel free to stay away if you want to. Don't do me any "favours" by forcing yourself to post here. I'm sure there are others, doesn't matter how few they might be, who are willing to stick to the topic and discuss without personal attacks or flame wars. Thank you.