Can anyone explain why that cookery sketch was meant to be funny. It was so bad that I'm starting to wonder whether I missed some little detail that maybe would've made it a bit funny at least. Waht was that NASA bloke doing sitting on the swing?
Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy - Series 1 Page 10
Quote: Badge @ January 29 2012, 12:51 AM GMTI haven't seen it.
Couldn't agree more. I haven't seen it either.
Quote: catskillz @ January 29 2012, 12:55 AM GMTCan anyone explain why that cookery sketch was meant to be funny. It was so bad that I'm starting to wonder whether I missed some little detail that maybe would've made it a bit funny at least.
I'm not sure if anyone can, I'm not sure it was even meant to be funny but just whacky, weird and 'out there'. sad face. If I was being very very kind I'd say there was a hint of satire in it about the ubiquity of cookery shows on TV. Maybe? 
Quote: catskillz @ January 29 2012, 12:55 AM GMTCan anyone explain why that cookery sketch was meant to be funny. It was so bad that I'm starting to wonder whether I missed some little detail that maybe would've made it a bit funny at least. Waht was that NASA bloke doing sitting on the swing?
Catskillz I'm shocked you haven't found a shaky YouTube video explaining it all.
Quote: dannyjb1 @ January 27 2012, 9:30 PM GMTReminded me a lot of Banana Splits, was waiting for the Arabian Nights cartoon.
Yes, it was very Banana Splity, especially the opening sequence with them as a band.
I fancy this show might get falsely high ratings as many tune in just to see how fantastically bad it gets then gleefully trounce a recent Mr popular into the ground on social media sites and comedy forums. I almost feel sorry for him already. And I do admire the bloke's bottle, for going full pelt for what he wanted to make and not stinting on the make up and dresses. Just a shame about his once burgeoning career.
Quote: catskillz @ January 27 2012, 11:21 PM GMTJust watched it on Catch up and was glued to the thing because it was so bad. It took me back to the days of T.F.I. Friday, when I watched every week, just to give my ego a boost because it was so terrible.
Am I missing something here?
The Prisoner-hit show, bits no one could understand.
The Monkees-hit show, bits no one could understand.
Twin Peaks-hit show, bits no one could understand.
Lost-hit show, bits no one could understand.
Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes-hit shows, bits no one could understand.
even...
Banana Splits-hit show, bits no one could understand.
Not being able to understand a show has in history made a cult show...
Quote: Tim Azure @ January 29 2012, 8:59 AM GMTAm I missing something here?
The Prisoner-hit show, bits no one could understand.
The Monkees-hit show, bits no one could understand.
Twin Peaks-hit show, bit no one could understand.
Lost-hit show, bits no one could understand.
Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes-hit shows, bits no one could understand.
even...
Banana Splits-hit show, bits no one could understand.
Not being able to understand a show has in history made a cult show...
Oh dear.
The Prisoner followed an extremely conventional narrative and explored major issues of the day. Always it was he wanted to escape, number 2 wanted information.
The monkees was a wonderfully conventional kids sitcom with surreal elements.
And Life on Mars and even Ashes to Ashes didn't really leave any stones unturned.
Surealism is a cracked mirror reflecting back. Hence in the Prisoner the election in which he becomes number 2 is a wonderfully presient satire on the hollowness of democracy.
Even In the Night Garden is all about a kids day and getting ready for bed.
If you can tell me what Noel Fielding is reflecting or satirising please do.
Quote: sootyj @ January 29 2012, 9:09 AM GMTEven In the Night Garden is all about a kids day and getting ready for bed.
Yep, a fantasy world but grounded in routines that make it realistic...the Tombliboos are the 'babies', Igglepiggle the playful toddler. Love it 
I will give Luxury Comedy a chance, as I'd like to see if familiarity will make it more enjoyable as it unfolds each week.
Quote: sootyj @ January 29 2012, 9:09 AM GMTOh dear.
The Monkees was a wonderfully conventional kids sitcom with surreal elements.
It might seem like that now, I don't think it was like that at the time.
What gets me is that critics seem to be saying it's a bad show because they don't understand it. But a number of good shows have things that are misunderstood. And if you want something to be a cult, it needs to be different from everything else.
I certainly haven't said I don't understand it.
Even the most surreal comedy needs somewhere to start off from.
For example Shooting Stars or The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer start from hugely conventional ideas. They just run them screaming into dark places.
Quote: Tim Azure @ January 29 2012, 9:48 AM GMTAnd if you want something to be a cult, it needs to be different from everything else.
You can't set out to make a cult, it doesn't work like that surely.
Quote: sootyj @ January 29 2012, 9:51 AM GMTI certainly haven't said I don't understand it.
Even the most surreal comedy needs somewhere to start off from.
For example Shooting Stars or The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer start from hugely conventional ideas. They just run them screaming into dark places.
It's said of novels that they have to be different to existing books, so that you want to read them, but similar to existing books, so that you know how to read them.
Exactly
Most of it didn't seem that weird to me; by which I mean if you've watched the Boosh and seen Fielding's stand up, it was merely an extension of that.
Just read this thread. Let's hope Noel Fielding doesn't... I think the consensus opinion on this show has been very clearly spelled out.
Even though it's not worked (based on the reactions over the last 10 pages) I do applaud Channel 4 for just letting him get on and make something as he wanted to. The best (and admittedly worst) comedies seem to be formed in this way.
I must admit though, Fielding's comedy has always annoyed me. Putting random words together doesn't make it funny, as Simon Amstell explains so well in this video