The reason it never gelled with a wider audience is that it felt far too much like an in-joke that appeals predominantly to a London based clique of media whores. And perhaps the most damning thing you can say about it, other than it wasn't terribly funny, is that the people it sought to satirise actually liked it!
Well Im not in that clique, or even in that city, and i THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT!
I thought it was ace.
Might be another series!
https://www.comedy.co.uk/news/news.php?story=000114
Dan
I loved Nathan Barley, I thought it was hilarious.
I am from Canada, and a small east coast city, and I think the references to hipster culture are totally universal.
I'm with Chipolata. I reckon that rather like AbFab, it satirised a very small group of people in a certain London media age, who recognised the types in the people they worked with (but hey, definitely not themselves, okay? I mean, I'm above all that shit, yeah?), and they loved it. They wrote about it saying how much we should love it. And hey presto, lots of people who weren't in that clique loved it!
Give me Brass Eye any day. Now that is good stuff. Though I'm completely mashed and bombed on cake as I write this.
And I watched Screen Wipe last night and enjoyed that too, even if Charlie Brooker is turning into Victor Lewis Smith in some of his intonation.
I'm glad somebody mentioned Screen Wipe. It's a great show, and a nice companion piece to Harry Hill's TV Burp. Although in the American special, when CB did a parody of Entertainment USA, he did look uncannily like Jonathan King.
I never watched nathan barley. I've been thinking about buying the DVD though.
I think Nuts had an "article" saying it was going to be the next Office. So I watched... and it wasn't.
I don't remember it being that funny but maybe it was just because it couldn't live up to the hype. I'd give it another chance if it got repeated.
Nathan Barley is really one of those shows that grows on you. A lot of people don't like it / hate it at first, then realise they have to take it all back after they give it a couple more goes.
Quote: Badge @ February 7, 2007, 1:09 AMI'm with Chipolata. I reckon that rather like AbFab, it satirised a very small group of people in a certain London media age, who recognised the types in the people they worked with (but hey, definitely not themselves, okay? I mean, I'm above all that shit, yeah?), and they loved it. They wrote about it saying how much we should love it. And hey presto, lots of people who weren't in that clique loved it!
No, I for one liked it because I thought it was very funny, different, smart and daring.
Quote: Badge @ February 7, 2007, 1:09 AMI'm with Chipolata. I reckon that rather like AbFab, it satirised a very small group of people in a certain London media age, who recognised the types in the people they worked with (but hey, definitely not themselves, okay? I mean, I'm above all that shit, yeah?), and they loved it. They wrote about it saying how much we should love it. And hey presto, lots of people who weren't in that clique loved it!
no i disagree, what exactly are your opinions based on do you know any london wannabe media rich/urban style magazine idiots? who liked the show?
who cares the show had some golden morris and brookers lines, but to think i like those lines because some london media rich boy chump likes the show is stupid
Nah, you missed my point, or more likely I didn't put it well. Fact is, you like what you like. And lots of people liked Nathan Barley because it tickled them. Fair enough. It didn't tickle me, but then I wouldn't expect everyone to like what I like.
My point was more that there IS a big market out there who are susceptible to watching something because it's cool, or at least the "in-thing". Nathan Barley was cool. Lots of London media types said it was cool, and they are the people who are read and viewed (no matter how much we might want it otherwise). And my unsubstantiated contention is that a reasonable amount of the Nathan Barley audience was persuaded by this media message, and then called it "cool" themselves. I suggest the same happened with AbFab. Both featured London media types, which London media types recognised, and therefore wrote about. That's the point I was trying to make, though it didn't get through. Sorry.
I believe Hans Christian Andersen wrote a cautionary tale on this theme, but altogether I'd better leave it before I expose my naked views any further.
Quote: Badge @ February 9, 2007, 12:39 AMNah, you missed my point, or more likely I didn't put it well. Fact is, you like what you like. And lots of people liked Nathan Barley because it tickled them. Fair enough. It didn't tickle me, but then I wouldn't expect everyone to like what I like.
My point was more that there IS a big market out there who are susceptible to watching something because it's cool, or at least the "in-thing". Nathan Barley was cool. Lots of London media types said it was cool, and they are the people who are read and viewed (no matter how much we might want it otherwise). And my unsubstantiated contention is that a reasonable amount of the Nathan Barley audience was persuaded by this media message, and then called it "cool" themselves. I suggest the same happened with AbFab. Both featured London media types, which London media types recognised, and therefore wrote about. That's the point I was trying to make, though it didn't get through. Sorry.
I believe Hans Christian Andersen wrote a cautionary tale on this theme, but altogether I'd better leave it before I expose my naked views any further.
i see your point i saw it in the other post but i disagree with it, im sure like you said that london media idiots did like barley as it was a pisstake against them (saying that if they read the tvgohome bit they probably would have relised it wasn't laughing with them but laughing at them), but to say that they all liked barley or that people only liked barley wanted to be in the clique of london media idiots i don't agree with.
I don't want to over-do this, as it is a really minor issue, but I think it's worth going over briefly as it applies to a lot of discussion about programmes (or even our sketches and pilots).
RULE No. 1: If I don't like something. that doesn't mean I don't like you (or all who sail therein)
RULE No. 2: If I say that I think that a lot of people like a programme because the trendy media say so, that doesn't mean you are one of those people who I think likes it because the media say so. You can like it in your own right.
I'd love to draw a Venn diagram but it doesn't meet the forum functionality. Like what you like, that's fine. But I do wish people would read what's written rather than what they think has been said.
Ah, well...