― koogs (koogs), Monday, 28 February 2005 18:40 (twenty-one years ago)
― koogs (koogs), Monday, 28 February 2005 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― dog latin (dog latin), Monday, 28 February 2005 19:36 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ste (Fuzzy), Monday, 28 February 2005 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― 15NRQ20, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 09:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― Johnney B (Johnney B), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 09:42 (twenty-one years ago)
Would you stop rapping!! Argh!
― Lucretia My Reflection (Lucretia My Reflection), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 09:56 (twenty-one years ago)
― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:13 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:52 (twenty-one years ago)
― NRQ, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:54 (twenty-one years ago)
― dog latin (dog latin), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 12:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― Crackity (Crackity Jones), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)
2 was disgusting.
3 was not as bad as 2.
― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 14:31 (twenty-one years ago)
― Masonic Cathedral (kate), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― the bellefox, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― The Lex (The Lex), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― NRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)
15peter20 was ridiculous and i loved that. i love any scene with jonathan yeah (dan's boss).
and nathan would have almost banged claire if he didn't start dancehall mc'ing!
― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)
― Masonic Cathedral (kate), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)
I'm downloading them with bittorrentdo you find my repeated viewings abhorrent?
― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)
― NTQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:20 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― why must we cut onions? (Lynskey), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:29 (twenty-one years ago)
The Dan character...maybe it's charlie brooker putting himself in there, so that he can cover his own back a bit. Writing a sitcom about nathans is a totally nathan thing to do, and he probably knows that, so by putting a nathan who hates the other nathans (but writes about them) into the show itself, he's trying to distance himself from them without actually denying he's just as bad as they are.
People I know who live outside london and think londoners are cunts seem to find this funnier than I do.
― JimD (JimD), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)
And Morris voice over, obv.
― JimD (JimD), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)
Oh, we don't just "think" Londoners are cunts. ;-)
― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)
― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)
i don't really want to see Nathan humiliated, i just want him to stop being a 'cunt'. but of course that would go against the premise of the show. neither route is REALLY satisfying though (satisfying != funny necessarily), so what i end up appreciating about this show is really just that there's nothing else quite like it on TV and it's doing something akin to what The Office and a few other programmes have done, troubling and saddening as much as amusing, and playing around with your reactions and attitudes to the characters in interesting and relatively novel ways.
this week Dan scored a 'victory' over Nathan - but Nathan somehow scored a 'victory' of his own away from everyone else, which perhaps settles the score in his own mind. so next week will he still idolise Dan or has the relationship changed forever? soapy indeed...
― Sven Bastard (blueski), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:14 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ste (Fuzzy), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)
― cutty (mcutt), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)
― Sven Bastard (blueski), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)
ha, it was just...silly. the scissors could surely never penetrate a cat's head after falling from that brief a height! this has ruined the entire series for me far more than anything else...
― Sven Bastard (blueski), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:21 (twenty-one years ago)
and for some reason, dan drinking a pint on the street, in clement weather, with short hair, it seemed really london.
a soap opera that's only 6 shows long.
it's good when things are funny but it's not the be all and end all.
― cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)
― cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:25 (twenty-one years ago)
― cutty (mcutt), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:29 (twenty-one years ago)
― cutty (mcutt), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:31 (twenty-one years ago)
― Sven Bastard (blueski), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:49 (twenty-one years ago)
are you kidding? The fact the scene had Kevin Eldon in was suggesting right away that this was going to be great. It was a breath of fresh air in what is slowly becoming, for a country bumpkin like me, a very alien sit-com.
what else in this episode was actually worth viewing?
― Ste (Fuzzy), Saturday, 5 March 2005 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― Sven Bastard (blueski), Saturday, 5 March 2005 13:20 (twenty-one years ago)
― Webb Friendly (Webb Friendly), Saturday, 5 March 2005 14:05 (twenty-one years ago)
The ultimate insult? The Japanese really love his hair! That mock tv show during the credits killed me. I eagerly await Momus's interpretation.
― mike h. (mike h.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 03:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― cutty (mcutt), Sunday, 6 March 2005 03:15 (twenty-one years ago)
― mike h. (mike h.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 03:26 (twenty-one years ago)
― retort pouch (retort pouch), Sunday, 6 March 2005 04:18 (twenty-one years ago)
The scissors-in-cat's-head was funny, but rather childish. What really irked me about this episode, though, was the bad faith around the haircut theme. The Office elements of social embarrassment were very much at odds with the Rake's Progress elements of fop satire, and The Office won. Brentism banished Hogarthian satire, which depends on a certain amount of verisimiltude. Morris and Brooker showed themselves more familiar with embarrassment than with fashion. They went for cheap laughs at other people's humiliation rather than looking at how dandyism and fashion work. A real hipster with the balls to try an outrageous hairstyle would not so quickly go from arrogance to shame, and a real hipster milieu would not be so unanimous in its ridicule or its praise. There's a liminal zone between cool and uncool, and it's perhaps the most interesting place, that zone of uncertainty between style hero and prat. That liminal zone was completely elided in this episode's rush to show pride coming before a fall.
The Japanese TV thing at the end was actually a silly racist stereotype as bad as anything in Lost in Translation. There are no shows like that on Japanese TV. It looked like a cross between a purikkura (print club) machine and 1980s UK yoof TV. They should've got Magenta Devine and members of Sigue Sigue Sputnik to celebrate and rehabilitate Nathan's hairstyle instead.
― Momus (Momus), Sunday, 6 March 2005 09:08 (twenty-one years ago)