Quote: Matthew Stott @ March 24 2009, 2:52 PM GMTNo, it clearly is; that just shows a lack of understaning/appreciation/like/any or all of those three for his style and technique.
So why does he like silence then?
Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle - Series 1 Page 17
Quote: Aaron @ March 24 2009, 3:27 PM GMTSo why does he like silence then?
Silence in comedy is as important as the words that punctuate it. It provides rhythm and expectation and structure. It takes a brave comedian to embrace it like Lee does.
It's actually refreshing to see something that dares risk silences, and quieter slower burns, instead of a desperate need to keep the "gags" coming. He is actually trusting the audience, not being "clever" and "patronising", since he is assuming they have the intelligence to appreciate something with a little depth that needs some semblance of an attention span.
Quote: Aaron @ March 24 2009, 3:27 PM GMTSo why does he like silence then?
Firstly, I don't think there was a whole lot in the way of 'silence'; but it's not a question of 'liking' it, more that he's in such control of his material, has such confidence in himself and his material, that he doesn't feel the need to fill the gaps with gag-laugh-gag-laugh, he has a point and he's getting to it in his own time, the idea of not making the audience laugh for thrity seconds doesn't fill him with terror. Bill Hicks was perhaps the master of this, no doubt another comedian who is not to your taste.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ March 24 2009, 1:38 PM GMTMr Carpark, hating this episode so much, after apparently liking episode one to such a high degree, really baffles me. Anyone would think you were talking about two different shows!
Dear Mr. Stott (and you are a dear),
I enjoy many television shows (mostly sci-fi, serial killer and angry insomniac Kiefer Sutherland based programmes) and all of them have good episodes and duff ones.
By tackling the subject of television, Mr. Lee put himself in direct competition with Charlie Brooker, who is the king of TV based ridicule. If you are going to be a pretender to the throne, then you have to wheel out some pretty heavy comedy artillery. Mr. Lee failed to do so, hence my disdain and disappointment.
Once the Comedy Vehicle series has come to an end, I'm sure that I will look back over it fondly as a whole. Until then, I reserve the right to judge each episode as it's presented to me. Hopefully, once Mr. Lee starts tackling more controversial subjects and adding his own unique 'spin', I will be happier then a porcine quadraped wallowing in my own excrement.
I've gone into great detail as to why the episode didn't work and why I didn't find it funny. I've run out of explanations to justify my opinion. However, I do disagree with the argument that 'it's better then the other shit on', as I find this line of reasoning self defeating and ultimately pointless.
Can't wait for next week's show! 
Your Friend,
R. Carpark
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ March 24 2009, 3:53 PM GMTBy tackling the subject of television, Mr. Lee put himself in direct competition with Charlie Brooker, who is the king of TV based ridicule. If you are going to be a pretender to the throne, then you have to wheel out some pretty heavy comedy artillery. Mr. Lee failed to do so, hence my disdain and disappointment.
Harry Hill is the king of TV based ridicule. As I said, Brooker likes a lot of the crap he ridicules. Also he spends too much time pretending to masturbate. Brooker is good, I find him funny and enjoy his shows, but the difference is, Lee has genuine anger and passion behind his words, which makes Comedy Vehicle much more effective.
Quote: Martin H @ March 24 2009, 4:45 PM GMTHarry Hill is the king of TV based ridicule. As I said, Brooker likes a lot of the crap he ridicules. Also he spends too much time pretending to masturbate. Brooker is good, I find him funny and enjoy his shows, but the difference is, Lee has genuine anger and passion behind his words, which makes Comedy Vehicle much more effective.
Hitler was angry and passionate as well, didn't make him right. 
I apologise, that was a low blow and was uncalled for. As I've stated before, I've given my case and I stand by it. This lady's not for turning, etc.
Quote: Martin H @ March 24 2009, 4:45 PM GMTHarry Hill is the king of TV based ridicule. As I said, Brooker likes a lot of the crap he ridicules. Also he spends too much time pretending to masturbate. Brooker is good, I find him funny and enjoy his shows, but the difference is, Lee has genuine anger and passion behind his words, which makes Comedy Vehicle much more effective.
In the two episodes broadcast to date, Lee has all the anger of steamed vegetables! Brooker likes TV as a medium, but hates the depths to which it sometimes goes. Hardly ridiculing what he likes.
No analysis from me.
I think he's brilliant.
A final point - Lee should get a suit that actually fits.
That is all.
Stewart Lee's style of stand-up is always going to polarise opinion. I personally find him brilliant and - dare I say - principled.
No sell-out this man.
His style may well work better in a live situation, but I am pleased to be able to watch him on telly. Stand-up on TV has become rather predictable.
The budget given to this show will be paltry compared with Horne and Corden and I know where I'd prefer my licence fee to be spent.
Don't really agree that Stewart was saying Del Boy falling through the bar wasn't actually funny, or that all TV is beneath contempt.
The joke was more to me about the pursuit of mediocrity by TV commissioners and the presumed paucity of imagination of the viewers.
With the repetition thing. He was mocking the audience (not the ones at the show, the ones at home) 
, for laughing at something they've seen a million times. Then he showed us the TV spraying people with excrement too many times. He also used the punchline '28 years old' twice in about five minutes.
I don't think he's some bumbling moron doing these things by accident. He was trying to demonstrate something.
I don't think he was saying falling through the bar wasn't funny either. I think we were supposed to laugh when he showed the clip at the end. And then think about why we had.
For what it's worth.
Yeah, when watching him I can't help but think that Stewart Lee is a poor man's Charlie Brooker who in turn is a poor man's Chris Morris&Armando Iannucci. (Chris and Armando being on par with each other).
The sketches like the 'Del Boy-Trigger festival' reminded me so much of the sketches in Armando Iannucci's 'Time Trumpet'.
Quote: zooo @ March 24 2009, 9:43 PM GMTHe was trying to demonstrate something.
What?
Well I don't know, because he's cleverer than me!
But sometimes with him (and a few other standups of that type) I realise later, or more usually have it explained to me, and it's like a new layer of meaning that was there all along but I didn't see.
Which is nice.
But that style of comedy isn't for everyone, I know.
Famine has made this show seem better than it actually is.
The references and material are dated in parts - I wouldn't bet against the gaping anus of Christ making an appearance in the 'Religion' episode. But it's nevertheless on a par with the best the Beeb has to offer at the moment (namely Not Going Out and... er, well that's about it).
I agree the sketches are pure Time Trumpet/The Armando Iannucci Shows.