Not many RG admirers on here then.
As Mrs Merton might have said - I'm sure the millionaire Ricky Gervais is cut to the quick by the scornful remarks.
I am a fan you might guess.
Life's Too Short Page 19
I think most people on here are RG admirers, whether they just like him maybe just for The Office, Extras, the Podcasts, AIA, stand up or LTS.
Just because someone I personally admire does a piece of work that I don't particularly like, it doesn't stop me admiring them. I still have a lot of respect for Mr. Gervais (and of course Mr. Merchant) for what they have achieved in 10 years. This outlook can be put towards loads of things like music or authors etc.
I just think maybe RG especially has got a bit too big for his boots and feels the BBC owe HIM a living now for what he gave them with The Office. Maybe a case of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'...?
Going back to the SM discussion, LTS reminds me a bit of Series 3 of The Mighty Boosh. I watch TMB S3 feeling that Julian Barratt's ideas have been pushed to the side in favour of Noel Fielding's sometimes lazy and unfunny ideas. Obviously I write this having never met the fellows, but Smerch always came across as the sane one (and dare I say it, the funnier one) that could control Ricky (although to be fair, he did sign up to do The Tooth Fairy and Hall Pass...). But from looking as an outsider, it seems he's joined the lazy and sloppy writing too.
How does anyone know that G+M didn't spend all the hours God sent them writing this script? Maybe the (formerly great) well is running out.
Would people keep tuning in if it wasn't with knowledge of their back catalogue? I still will, the show is certainly not terrible...
Plus that Derek Noakes character is dreadful.
Who's Derek Noakes?
Gervais' attempt to pull some humour from a mock doc (Jesus) about a man with learning difficulties/mental illness who wants to be a stand-up comedian (Christ). You can see it here if you want to waste six minutes of your life and lose a little more respect for Gervais.
It's poorly observed, written and acted and it's hard to know why he made it other than he could or he has some sort of dislike of people with mental illness. Again the humour is entirely derived from chronicling the difference between Noakes and a non-ill person. Obviously the RG lovers will leap to his defence about him not meaning it, but what can you really take from this other than the fact that he thinks these disadvantaged people are innately funny?
The weird thing is surely RG has enough opportunities these days not to need to rifle through his bin.
Has he got gambling debts or something?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 21 2011, 10:37 PM GMTInteresting read, whether you agree with it or not:
http://thequietus.com/articles/07434-ricky-gervais-mong-face
Interesting indeed, it was well written, yet the assertions seemed relatively bereft of inteligence to my mind. I'd have one question for the author - how many dwarves have complained about LTS?
Quote: Godot Taxis @ November 23 2011, 9:03 AM GMTGervais' attempt to pull some humour from a mock doc (Jesus) about a man with learning difficulties/mental illness who wants to be a stand-up comedian (Christ). You can see it here if you want to waste six minutes of your life and lose a little more respect for Gervais.
It's poorly observed, written and acted and it's hard to know why he made it other than he could or he has some sort of dislike of people with mental illness. Again the humour is entirely derived from chronicling the difference between Noakes and a non-ill person. Obviously the RG lovers will leap to his defence about him not meaning it, but what can you really take from this other than the fact that he thinks these disadvantaged people are innately funny?
Seems like a case of the green eyed monster with you and Gervais. I don't know how close in age you are, though I seem to recall you're a fan of Frankie Boyle, who goes much further than Gervais, and whom most PC types seem to hate a lot more, yet you're using PC arguments as a stick to beat Gervais with. The lack of logic here would suggest that it's beecause he's much more famous, and has achieved more than Frankie Boyle, to the point that you begrudge him so much fame and success...
I thoroughly enjoyed the second episode. Much better than the first. I think Warwick's looks to camera are as funny as hell. Being placed in the toilet and the bear costume was bloody funny. However I'm not sure what Johnny Depp added to the episode to be honest. Bit of name dropping me thinks.
As far as Derek Noakes goes, the timing seems interesting, as far as I'm aware he mentioned Derek Noakes after he ended up apologising over mong-gate, which makes me think it's an idle threat after being brow beaten into submission, or it'll be something he'll work closely on with the mother of that person with DS. Much as he probably worked closely with Warwick on LTS.
Quote: Vader @ November 23 2011, 10:46 PM GMTSeems like a case of the green eyed monster with you and Gervais. I don't know how close in age you are, though I seem to recall you're a fan of Frankie Boyle, who goes much further than Gervais, and whom most PC types seem to hate a lot more, yet you're using PC arguments as a stick to beat Gervais with. The lack of logic here would suggest that it's beecause he's much more famous, and has achieved more than Frankie Boyle, to the point that you begrudge him so much fame and success...
Yeah, it's jealousy, you're right - you sharp c**t.
If you want to argue with me, Vader, you can't pick and choose my comments - let's have some comment on my earlier points (previous page) about the blog post and Gervais' presentation of himself.
I don't have a hard-on for anyone famous - Boyle, Gervais... I respect quality and talk about it where I see it if I want to. You can find lots of posts on here with me praising the Office and Extras. Earlier in this thread I described the character of Maggie (Ashley Jensen) as 'sublime'. I enjoyed Extras and the Office and have seen both many times.
Nevertheless Gervais is a good, not great writer. He has all the assumptions of the status quo and his characters peddle the zeitgeist. There are indicators that he has already run out of things to say.
Boyle's comedy at it's best is progressive and sometimes cruel. Gervais' comedy is always cruel and almost never progressive.
When Boyle says that Jordan and Peter Andre are fighting over Harvey and sooner or later one of them will have to keep him, he hits at the heart of our feelings over disability and illness. We pay lip service to notions of caring and equality but would probably balk at putting it into practice ourselves and ultimately am glad that is someone else's problem. He shows us this side of ourselves and says; 'hey aren't we two faced bastards'. There is realisation and release.
When Gervais dresses up as Derek Noakes he expects us to recognise the 'impression' and praise his verisimilitude. Nothing is uncovered. Furthermore he underlines the difference between himself and Noakes by making him want to be Gervais (he wants to be a stand up comedian rather than - say - a train driver) but is disadvantaged twice - once through mental illness and secondly through thinking comedy lies in catch phrases like 'I don't believe it'. Gervais reinforces the notion of his own celebrity and separateness whilst getting a nice ping pong assumption that catch phrases really only appeal to mentally ill people like Derek.
In Life's Too Short we're not really laughing at our double standards regarding Dwarves or disabled people, but at how funny they look trying to act normal lives. It engages the part of race memory that would have kept audiences up at Victorian circuses and freakshows.
Finally, I don't think Gervais has achieved very much at all. I see two sitcoms. Quality is there but they're not flawless and they were both co-written.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ November 24 2011, 11:27 AM GMT
In Life's Too Short we're not really laughing at our double standards regarding Dwarves or disabled people, but at how funny they look trying to act normal lives. It engages the part of race memory that would have kept audiences up at Victorian circuses and freakshows.
I know this wasn't aimed towards me but what the hell! I disagree. If we were just following a dwarf like the series on Channel 4 then you have to ask the question why? They're just like the rest of us, just shorter! But this is a deliberate act in over-egging responses to Warwick and also using him has a comedy vehicle. Some bits grate like the local TV reporter interview but over-all I think it achieves it's aim (indeed if it has an aim other than entertainment).
Quote: Godot Taxis @ November 24 2011, 11:27 AM GMTYeah, it's jealousy, you're right - you sharp c**t.
If you want to argue with me, Vader, you can't pick and choose my comments - let's have some comment on my earlier points (previous page) about the blog post and Gervais' presentation of himself.
I don't have a hard-on for anyone famous - Boyle, Gervais... I respect quality and talk about it where I see it if I want to. You can find lots of posts on here with me praising the Office and Extras. Earlier in this thread I described the character of Maggie (Ashley Jensen) as 'sublime'. I enjoyed Extras and the Office and have seen both many times.
Nevertheless Gervais is a good, not great writer. He has all the assumptions of the status quo and his characters peddle the zeitgeist. There are indicators that he has already run out of things to say.
Boyle's comedy at it's best is progressive and sometimes cruel. Gervais' comedy is always cruel and almost never progressive.
When Boyle says that Jordan and Peter Andre are fighting over Harvey and sooner or later one of them will have to keep him, he hits at the heart of our feelings over disability and illness. We pay lip service to notions of caring and equality but would probably balk at putting it into practice ourselves and ultimately am glad that is someone else's problem. He shows us this side of ourselves and says; 'hey aren't we two faced bastards'. There is realisation and release.
When Gervais dresses up as Derek Noakes he expects us to recognise the 'impression' and praise his verisimilitude. Nothing is uncovered. Furthermore he underlines the difference between himself and Noakes by making him want to be Gervais (he wants to be a stand up comedian rather than - say - a train driver) but is disadvantaged twice - once through mental illness and secondly through thinking comedy lies in catch phrases like 'I don't believe it'. Gervais reinforces the notion of his own celebrity and separateness whilst getting a nice ping pong assumption that catch phrases really only appeal to mentally ill people like Derek.
In Life's Too Short we're not really laughing at our double standards regarding Dwarves or disabled people, but at how funny they look trying to act normal lives. It engages the part of race memory that would have kept audiences up at Victorian circuses and freakshows.
Finally, I don't think Gervais has achieved very much at all. I see two sitcoms. Quality is there but they're not flawless and they were both co-written.
My post wasn't directed at the post I quoted particularly, more your last 3 or so posts. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you about FB, but I think you're being a bit harsh on RG. In another thread I said the arrogance was for comic effect and you said it wasn't funny, but you can bet that some people will find it funny. I find it entertaining, it makes a nice change from false modesty and people being trained to make sure they don't give anyone any ammunition.
Quote: roscoff @ November 24 2011, 12:29 PM GMTI know this wasn't aimed towards me but what the hell! I disagree. If we were just following a dwarf like the series on Channel 4 then you have to ask the question why? They're just like the rest of us, just shorter! But this is a deliberate act in over-egging responses to Warwick and also using him has a comedy vehicle. Some bits grate like the local TV reporter interview but over-all I think it achieves it's aim (indeed if it has an aim other than entertainment).
Indeed, I don't think everything in it is supposed to be funny.
Looking forward to this again tonight.
Have enjoyed it so far, and there's always a few bits that make me laugh out loud.
I don't get that with many britcoms at the moment
Even if this ends up being the worst thing Gervais and/or Merchant ever do it's still miles ahead of a lot of the other competition - plus it makes a great stop gap until the next series of Peep Show arrives.
Didn't make me laugh this week, pretty flat.