Quote: Godot Taxis @ January 9 2011, 4:56 PM GMTWell your view isn't worth a tin f**k, then Shamsa, since almost all of Tramadol Nights was satire.
Since almost all of it was satire then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to come up with a couple of examples.
Incidentally, did you just misspell 'Samsa' out of ignorance or is there another reason for you calling yourself 'Gregor Shamsa'?
Genuine mishtake.
Quote: Gregor Shamsa @ January 9 2011, 5:11 PM GMTSince almost all of it was satire then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to come up with a couple of examples.
Or you.
Quote: Gregor Shamsa @ January 9 2011, 5:11 PM GMTSince almost all of it was satire then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to come up with a couple of examples.
Or you.
There was that bit where he said John Prescott was fat.
Shame more people don't understand this show; it was the best thing on the box last year.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ January 9 2011, 5:13 PM GMTOr you.
Not even one measly example of Boyle's satirical intent on this show?
Quote: don rushmore @ January 9 2011, 5:28 PM GMTShame more people don't understand this show; it was the best thing on the box last year.
Seriously, what is there to understand? I watched the whole series (some episodes twice) and there appeared to be little going on beneath the surface.
I'm not trying to be an awkward twat, just interested in finding out what posters here think is satirical - or indeed cutting edge - about Tramadol Nights.
Quote: don rushmore @ January 9 2011, 5:28 PM GMTShame more people don't understand this show; it was the best thing on the box last year.
Can any show recover from that?
Roosters isn't so bad.
Some of the standup is sharp granted,
but the sketches anyof them work for you?
I watched some of this show and thought that it was like watching a big kid who was given a special dispensation and allowed to be naughty, so he went for it.
Boyle is good at stand-up, but a lot of the material in this run was vile purely for the sake of being vile. I think he was angling for this 'new direction' in his later Mock The Week appearances and that's why he left that show.
Maybe his thought process was - stand-ups are two a penny so I need to be different.
Not a bad position to adopt but why not equate different with perhaps being cleverer, rather than simply being nasty and playing the 'very naughty boy' just because someone's allowed you to be one.
Immature and irritating. Grow up Frankie, act your age and stop being a big bairn.
Very well put, Blekinsop.
Quote: Blenkinsop @ January 16 2011, 11:18 PM GMTMaybe his thought process was - stand-ups are two a penny so I need to be different.
Not a bad position to adopt but why not equate different with perhaps being cleverer rather than simply being nasty
Because stand-ups who are - or think that they are - clever and insightful, are about as different as a punnet of strawberries?
Maybe his thought proces was (obviously in a scotch accent) "This makes me laugh, maybe it will make other people laugh" in which case fair enough.
I heard he was paid £250,000 an episode. Pretty good going.
Having been out the country I've just watched the whole series on 4OD.
Lots of involuntary laughs (in the most literal sense) gradually diminishing ... and diminishing.
I reckon they front-stacked all the best gags in the early shows.
