Quote: Gregor Shamsa @ March 24 2009, 10:12 PM GMTFamine has made this show seem better than it actually is.
In your opinion, others just genuinly really like it.
Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle - Series 1 Page 18
I think the whole Del Boy argument slightly detracts from what, judging by the first two episodes, is the point of this series.
Stewart Lee is not trying to look down his nose at anyone. He is simply pointing out how we celebrate and reward mediocrity and lack aspirations for orginality and ambition in our cultural lives. I think it was more obvious and successful in the first episode, ie the Dan Brown, Chris Moyles and Asher D routines.
I don't think he is being elitist, simply pointing out how low our collective expectations have become and how homogenised a people we are that it becomes received wisdom that the OFAH clip is the funniest thing EVER to happen on British TV.
The fact that Lee called his last touring show '41st Best Stand-Up Ever' should be a pointer that he is rallying against arbitary labels of artistic quality, which don't encourage individual thought or opinion.
Phew!
I agree with what the Walker man said.
Quote: Aaron @ March 24 2009, 2:42 PM GMT?!!!??!!?! You must be watching entirely different programmes to me. Brooker is angry and frustrated because TV is often so mundane, but he knows how brilliant it can be when it tries. Lee's material was that TV itself is mundane, but his performance was that he didn't care either way.
Read Brooker's articles. He attacks Big Brother viciously and very humorously, but he likes the show, has watched it for years and still watches it and became best buds with an ex-housemate. He attacked Hole in the Wall viciously and very humorously, but in the end said something like "but is it really that bad, after all it's just a bit of fun", that kind of thing he does a lot.
Lee makes no excuses for the shows or personalities he attacked.
And whoever said Lee has his 'showbiz pals' in these episodes, is hardly the same is it? How many people have heard of Simon Munnery, Kevin Eldon etc? These are just brilliant but underused comic performers that have now been given a chance to work thanks to Lee. It's hardly Gervais arsing around with Ben Stiller.
Quote: Ian Wolf @ March 24 2009, 2:59 PM GMTYou're not the only one, Sam Wollaston in The Guardian commented on it too.
Even more reason to like this show, if that tool doesn't like it.
Love Munnery.
"My aims are that of an owl's.
To whit, to woo.
Eh ladies?"
Possibly works better when he delivers it!
Quote: johnny smith @ March 24 2009, 9:48 PM GMTYeah, 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.
Lee is from the same class as Iannucci and Morris, they all came in to comedy together, working on On the Hour. Lee, along with Herring helped create the first formation of the Alan Partridge character. Lee was attacking television and the media effectively and hilariously, while Brooker was still writing computer game reviews.
Lee is a poor nothing, he has his own style that has progressed from the early 90s to where he is now and is one of the most acclaimed stand-up comedians currently going.
Quote: Martin H @ March 24 2009, 10:39 PM GMTLee is from the same class as Iannucci and Morris, they all came in to comedy together, working on On the Hour. Lee, along with Herring helped create the first formation of the Alan Partridge character.
Lee is a poor nothing, he has his own style that has progressed from the early 90s to where he is now and is one of the most acclaimed stand-up comedians currently going.
Ding! Correct answer.
Good news, the ratings were exactly the same as last week, so no loss in viewers. I think 1 million is probably right, that's about the amount of people that like this sort of stuff and those people are all watching.
I'm not sure if he'll get a second series though if he keeps attacking the BBC like he has done. Perhaps they may move him to BBC Four or something though.
Quote: Seefacts @ March 24 2009, 10:40 PM GMTDing! Correct answer.
In your opinion*.
*am I doing it right yet?
Quote: Gregor Shamsa @ March 24 2009, 10:50 PM GMTIn your opinion*.
*am I doing it right yet?
No because it was actually a fact. Lee did come through the comedy gates with Iannucci and Morris and co. He did help create the first formation of Alan Partridge. He was attacking the media on radio and television, while Brooker was still writing game reviews. And he is one of the most acclaimed stand-ups in the country or the world according to Channel 4, 41st best ever apparently. 
Quote: Gregor Shamsa @ March 24 2009, 10:50 PM GMTIn your opinion*.
You should feel immensely flattered - you have been given Seefacts' seal of approval!
1 million viewers is more than (pre-TV and radio) comedians played to in a whole lifetime. In these economic times the BBC shouldn't be so obsessed with ratings as much as quality. In fact they never should.
1 million still means nearly 1 in 60 people watched it. Encouraging I'd say.
If the BBC can't tolerate criticism of itself from within its own shows then we might as well give up on it.*am I doing it right yet?
Quote: Martin H @ March 24 2009, 10:53 PM GMTNo because it was actually a fact. Lee did come through the comedy gates with Iannucci and Morris and co. He did help create the first formation of Alan Partridge. He was attacking the media on radio and television, while Brooker was still writing game reviews. And he is one of the most acclaimed stand-ups in the country or the world according to Channel 4, 41st best ever apparently.
fact = news/importance
Ooooh, the same Stewart Lee who is sandwiched between Richard Herring and David Quantick as a credited writer for On The Hour? That Stewart Lee!?
:facepalm:
Quote: Gregor Shamsa @ March 24 2009, 11:03 PM GMTfact = news/importance
Ooooh, the same Stewart Lee who is sandwiched between Richard Herring and David Quantick as a credited writer for On The Hour? That Stewart Lee!?
:facepalm:
As a pedant it should be "fact x importance = news".
Quote: Tim Walker @ March 24 2009, 11:07 PM GMTAs a pedant it should be "fact x importance = news".
I was going to say that but I'm a slow pedant.
A corollary of this is that importance = news/fact. So as fact tends to zero things become more important.
Quote: Tim Walker @ March 24 2009, 11:07 PM GMTAs a pedant it should be "fact x importance = news".
I rearranged the equation