"And it had a red arse too!!"
AA Gill is a baboon-killing c**t Page 3
Quote: Griff @ October 30 2009, 12:46 PM BSTNancy Banks-Smith is the bestest TV critic ever. On one hand, I don't want her to die, but on the other, I can't wait for the posthumous volumes of her collected columns.
You could maim her quite badly?
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 30 2009, 12:45 PM BSTIt is curious that Gill ever even decided to become a TV critic because, having read his column for several years, it seems that he pretty much loathes the medium.
I agree with this completely. Of the some publication, Cosmo Landesman seems to hate every single movie he goes to see, so why be a film critic?
Dan
See, to me that's the difference between them and the likes of Charlie Brooker or Mark Kermode. Both Charlie and Mark tend to dish out the vitriol for bad TV/films, but there is a genuine passion for their subject behind the bile. When they slate something they explain their reasons with obvious great knowledge and when they lavish praise on something you can see what massive fans they are of their respective mediums. The likes of Adrian and Cosmo seem to consider any genuine enthusiasm for TV and films as a little common, a little sub-intellectual and a waste of their talents. They don't so much write reviews as write withering school reports, like teachers disillusioned with their choice of career. They also don't seem to see that the primary purpose of TV & film it to be entertaining. Great if they are educational or technically proficient as well, but they should entertain.
I'd never heard of the man to be honest, until this thread.
But now I've read his column, yes he certainly seems to be a c**t. 
That's what happens when people are very rich and very shallow and have very easy jobs, they have to really scrape the barrel to find things to keep themselves busy and entertain their pathetic little minds.
You rotten lot. Gill can write any currently working critic into a bag and on any subject. Today's demolition of the appalling Sue Perkins being just one example. A master of the English language, of hyperbole, irony and simple tweaking of pompous people's noses he has no UK equal. Not since Clive James has a TV critic been so erudite, well-informed and well-read and above all so willing to say the things people don't want to hear at the time they least wish to hear it. I don't think it matters a jot what he is like as a person, what's on the page is what counts and it adds up to a considerable body of work.
Oh and Giles Coren is, as someone, not Gill, said, 'only good at burping and being a c**t' which is crude, but deadly accurate. And funny.
His TV column along with Clarkson's are my 2 reasons for buying the Sunday Times.
And Baboons are all c**ts.
His TV column along with Clarkson's are my 2 reasons for buying the Sunday Times.
And Baboons are all c**ts.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 31 2009, 3:15 PM GMTSee, to me that's the difference between them and the likes of Charlie Brooker or Mark Kermode. Both Charlie and Mark tend to dish out the vitriol for bad TV/films, but there is a genuine passion for their subject behind the bile. When they slate something they explain their reasons with obvious great knowledge and when they lavish praise on something you can see what massive fans they are of their respective mediums. The likes of Adrian and Cosmo seem to consider any genuine enthusiasm for TV and films as a little common, a little sub-intellectual and a waste of their talents. They don't so much write reviews as write withering school reports, like teachers disillusioned with their choice of career. They also don't seem to see that the primary purpose of TV & film it to be entertaining. Great if they are educational or technically proficient as well, but they should entertain.
You know what? I agree with you.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 31 2009, 3:15 PM GMTSee, to me that's the difference between them and the likes of Charlie Brooker or Mark Kermode. Both Charlie and Mark tend to dish out the vitriol for bad TV/films, but there is a genuine passion for their subject behind the bile. When they slate something they explain their reasons with obvious great knowledge and when they lavish praise on something you can see what massive fans they are of their respective mediums. The likes of Adrian and Cosmo seem to consider any genuine enthusiasm for TV and films as a little common, a little sub-intellectual and a waste of their talents. They don't so much write reviews as write withering school reports, like teachers disillusioned with their choice of career. They also don't seem to see that the primary purpose of TV & film it to be entertaining. Great if they are educational or technically proficient as well, but they should entertain.
Well Booker's sneery pose is a bit tiresome and quite frankly until Kermode grows out of the quiff and wishy washy liberal views I find him hard to take seriously on any subject. Certainly not as seriously as he takes himself.
I am not sure that fans make the best critics. Gill and Landesman are observers of the mediums, and both have praised things just as fulsomely as they have derided others. As any critic knows, though, it's much more fun to slag something off, and easier too. So you can't blame them for picking on turkeys, especially when those turkeys are so often venerated by the duller critics.
S
He slagged off Sue Perkins?? 
NOW the man is my mortal enemy. 
Quote: zooo @ November 22 2009, 4:50 PM GMTHe slagged off Sue Perkins??
NOW the man is my mortal enemy.
Hiya zooo 
Quote: zooo @ November 22 2009, 4:50 PM GMTHe slagged off Sue Perkins??
NOW the man is my mortal enemy.
Representing the "I know what I like" mouth-breathers was Sue Perkins, who unfortunately doesn't know her place, which is probably on CBBC or a whingeing women's midmorning sofa. She presented The Art on Your Wall, an examination of popular mass-produced posters.
Perkins is that woman who does food quizzes and doesn't know anything about food. Here, she didn't know anything about art. I can't wait for her to do One Man and His Dog. Not knowing what you're talking about is not in itself a bar to working on television, obviously, but talking at such great length about a subject you don't merely have no knowledge of, but lack any discernible aptitude for, was a bit breathtaking. Perkins may well have masses of finely honed and sophisticated talents, but on TV all she ever offers us is a relentless, jolly solipsism.
There is no piece of popular culture that can't be passed through the sink disposal of her own limited experience. So poster art was really all about what she'd had on her walls, or used to have on her walls, and, in a moment of generous altruism, what her dad had on his walls. Why her closest friends, let alone complete strangers in their own living rooms, should have the remotest interest in what Perkins and her dad like to nail to the Artex was never explained. There was, somewhere, the germ of an observant Arena-style documentary on popular decorative taste, but it was covered with the formless, myopic self-interest of Perkins. It's not that she simply couldn't get over herself, it's that she couldn't see why she should try. The view wouldn't be anything like as comforting.'
Try and laugh that off with your standard'hey everyone look at me I'm being ironic!' tone of voice and body language Perkins!
S
Quote: Marc P @ November 22 2009, 4:59 PM GMTRepresenting the "I know what I like" mouth-breathers was Sue Perkins, who unfortunately doesn't know her place, which is probably on CBBC or a whingeing women's midmorning sofa. She presented The Art on Your Wall, an examination of popular mass-produced posters.
Perkins is that woman who does food quizzes and doesn't know anything about food. Here, she didn't know anything about art. I can't wait for her to do One Man and His Dog. Not knowing what you're talking about is not in itself a bar to working on television, obviously, but talking at such great length about a subject you don't merely have no knowledge of, but lack any discernible aptitude for, was a bit breathtaking. Perkins may well have masses of finely honed and sophisticated talents, but on TV all she ever offers us is a relentless, jolly solipsism.
There is no piece of popular culture that can't be passed through the sink disposal of her own limited experience. So poster art was really all about what she'd had on her walls, or used to have on her walls, and, in a moment of generous altruism, what her dad had on his walls. Why her closest friends, let alone complete strangers in their own living rooms, should have the remotest interest in what Perkins and her dad like to nail to the Artex was never explained. There was, somewhere, the germ of an observant Arena-style documentary on popular decorative taste, but it was covered with the formless, myopic self-interest of Perkins. It's not that she simply couldn't get over herself, it's that she couldn't see why she should try. The view wouldn't be anything like as comforting.'
Agreed. In my opinion, Sue Perkins is f**king useless.
That's the problem with AA Gill. Sometimes I agree with the c**t.