Nathan For You

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (876 of them)

anyway, next episode involves forming a band in order to sell discount smoke detectors, might explain his appearance with Mac Demarco? was there any loud beeping during the performance??

frogbs, Friday, 20 October 2017 03:15 (eight years ago)

good call w/ the jimmy kimmel bit. i wonder if they really spent $350,000 making this anecdote a reality

dynamicinterface, Saturday, 21 October 2017 00:07 (eight years ago)

Nathan at the wedding was so hilarious

JRN, Saturday, 21 October 2017 02:02 (eight years ago)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMocsGPWkAARXUj.jpg

johnny crunch, Saturday, 21 October 2017 03:39 (eight years ago)

Man I love Nathan Fielder

carpet_kaiser, Saturday, 21 October 2017 03:43 (eight years ago)

LOL this episode

flopson, Saturday, 21 October 2017 08:29 (eight years ago)

nathan's the best

Week of Wonders (Ross), Saturday, 21 October 2017 20:25 (eight years ago)

Lol @ the irony of how he lies to all these people in order to have a "true" story to tell on Kimmel.

Also loved this as satire of the late-night talk show format, which is a pretty lame, tired thing deserving of savage mockery imo.

davey, Sunday, 22 October 2017 05:41 (eight years ago)

Just caught up on the new season. This show fucking destroys me.

circa1916, Sunday, 22 October 2017 06:25 (eight years ago)

On season 4 but still weirdly niche. It’s probably the funniest thing on TV.

circa1916, Sunday, 22 October 2017 06:26 (eight years ago)

@davey i thought the same thing. that montage of anecdotes was amazing

maura, Sunday, 22 October 2017 10:25 (eight years ago)

the scene where he invites himself to the wedding was excruciating

gr8080, Monday, 23 October 2017 18:31 (eight years ago)

yeah as much as I love this show there are entire scenes I just have to skip

Simon H., Monday, 23 October 2017 18:33 (eight years ago)

The hilarious thing about that is the couple seemingly unaware of the art of saying "We'll get back to you on that".

Evan, Monday, 23 October 2017 18:33 (eight years ago)

also lol @ how he goes from hiding behind a tree to ripping up the dancefloor

gr8080, Monday, 23 October 2017 18:34 (eight years ago)

its even more awkward when you consider that there were probably other couples that just flat out said no, this was as close to a "yes" as he got

frogbs, Monday, 23 October 2017 18:35 (eight years ago)

series is killing it. last episode was insane

||||||||, Monday, 23 October 2017 19:06 (eight years ago)

So I've not seen him on Kimmel yet, should I go watch the new ep first or would seeing Kimmel first make more sense? Or is it entwined?

Le Bateau Ivre, Monday, 23 October 2017 19:41 (eight years ago)

*intertwined

Le Bateau Ivre, Monday, 23 October 2017 19:41 (eight years ago)

The best way is to have seen the Kimmel appearance without the knowledge that there was going to be an episode about it. The next best thing is to watch the Kimmel appearance first, then the episode.

Evan, Monday, 23 October 2017 19:45 (eight years ago)

^ this is correct

Chocolate-covered gummy bears? Not ruling those lil' guys out. (ulysses), Monday, 23 October 2017 19:46 (eight years ago)

Next best thing it will be (as a watcher of the show I unfortunately haven't avoided the knowledge)

Le Bateau Ivre, Monday, 23 October 2017 19:52 (eight years ago)

yea I was glad to have not seen the appearance first

johnny crunch, Monday, 23 October 2017 20:01 (eight years ago)

was there any info on if Kimmel was in on it? I was leaning toward he was since after the story he says "you're out of your goddamn mind" in a laughing way that seemed like he knew.

Western® with Bacon Flavor, Monday, 23 October 2017 20:03 (eight years ago)

Ok that was great. Surely Kimmel and Dunst too were in on it though, right?

Extremely good uncomfy viewing the couple.

Le Bateau Ivre, Monday, 23 October 2017 20:22 (eight years ago)

I don't think Nathan believes in people being in on it

Number None, Monday, 23 October 2017 20:24 (eight years ago)

yea i would doubt they were

kimmels comment and knowing laugh maybe were just a guess that something was up idk

nathan commenting that 'i considered just leaving' when dunst's story was hitting all his points was really funny also

johnny crunch, Monday, 23 October 2017 21:02 (eight years ago)

Idk but it doesn't take anything away from my enjoyment of the show either way

Le Bateau Ivre, Monday, 23 October 2017 21:07 (eight years ago)

I legitimately think the Kirsten Dunst thing was a coincidence

frogbs, Monday, 23 October 2017 21:13 (eight years ago)

The show thrives on that sort of happenstance

Number None, Monday, 23 October 2017 21:14 (eight years ago)

that appearance on kimmel makes so much more sense now lol

Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Monday, 23 October 2017 21:57 (eight years ago)

okay this show has made and does make me laugh but it's pretty ethically dubious right? i've been getting more and more uncomfortable with it, like it's a lot of immigrants/people of color or just genuinely unhinged seeming people who are the ones ending up lampooned and yes a lot of them do agree to do do whatever he is saying but there is certainly a power differential. i usually see this excused away by people saying 'he makes himself the butt of the joke' but i don't quite see it that way

global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 00:29 (eight years ago)

I legitimately think the Kirsten Dunst thing was a coincidence

So do I.

re: the ethics, I dunno, it always seems to me like it could be a hell of a lot worse. Like the Chinese restaurant marriage proposal thing could sound iffy on paper but they almost went out of their way to underline the absurdity of the concept above all else, even if the gag itself does necessarily lean on the "otherness" of the setting.

Simon H., Tuesday, 24 October 2017 00:39 (eight years ago)

i guess my problem is less that he was doing a silly impression of a chinese restaurant and more that he... you know... got someone to marry him against their consent? (even if it was fake which i suspect)

not surprising that tim and eric produced this, it sure fits into that T+E school of humor centering on basically laughing at mentally ill people

global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 00:58 (eight years ago)

eh, nathan always comes off more clueless and worse off than anyone else on the show

Chocolate-covered gummy bears? Not ruling those lil' guys out. (ulysses), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 00:59 (eight years ago)

but he's putting on an act

global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:06 (eight years ago)

This show's humor is rooted in evil, and so is Tim and Eric. But how evil, really? To me it's like two dogs play fighting "evil". Nobody's getting hurt here, as far as I know, and everyone comes out of it better off, or at least in the same place they were.

carpet_kaiser, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:08 (eight years ago)

Compare it to Million Dollar Extreme which is fucking Neo Nazi shit.

carpet_kaiser, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:09 (eight years ago)

So much of the humor is Nathan's absolutely idiotic, overwrought ideas. The people going along with it is like the background to that... it's less evil than Jay Leno's Streetwalkers segment.

carpet_kaiser, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:11 (eight years ago)

so we've got:

a- it's not as bad as neo-nazi humor (although his fake ted talk was really good)
b- even he 'comes across' as clueless or poorly off even though that isn't reflective of the situation at hand

global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:14 (eight years ago)

*if he does, ugh

global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:14 (eight years ago)

c- can we not

flopson, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:17 (eight years ago)

Yeah, I like that one, the c option

carpet_kaiser, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:18 (eight years ago)

i like the show you all, just you can't deny there's something a pretty immoral about it

global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:20 (eight years ago)

if by immoral you mean twisted or strange sure
if you mean "evil" i can't even exactly
like in this dark fucked up world how is this the thing you wanna take offense at

Chocolate-covered gummy bears? Not ruling those lil' guys out. (ulysses), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:24 (eight years ago)

what's some good MORAL comedy these days that doesn't go overboard with the lampooning of the mentally ill like our friends Tim and Eric do, or the targeting of ethnic immigrant shop-owners like anti-immigrant Nathan Fielder does

del griffith, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:25 (eight years ago)

i take offense at plenty, thanks

global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:27 (eight years ago)

would you be OK with the show if the producers had decided to remove any scenes involving immigrants or people or color?

del griffith, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:30 (eight years ago)

just using that as an example of a power differential and punching down

global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:33 (eight years ago)

the entire show is a ruthless mockery of contemporary capitalism which is kinda the ultimate punch up imho

Simon H., Tuesday, 24 October 2017 01:36 (eight years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.