At the time of writing (June), BBC Radio 4 is transmitting a comedy quiz show called The 99p Challenge, hosted by Sue Perkins and featuring team captains Peter Baynham and Simon Pegg, with assorted weekly guest-panellists who include David Quantick, Mel Giedroyc, Tom Binns, Richard Herring and Armando Iannucci. You know - all that lot. The mainframe script is written by Kevin Cecil and Andy Riley. It’s a Pozzitive production for the BBC, produced by Sarah Smith.
It’s okay, in a sort of laid back kind of way. But this is not press release for the show, more a plea for understanding.
Some listeners will recognise the format from when it was called King Stupid. The show was broadcast in September/October 1998 and was denounced by the then head of Radio 4 as the worst programme he’d ever heard. This is a little unfair. Peter Baynham was always good, there were some nice comic turns from the varying guests (Morwenna Banks in particular was fantastic) and the show was beautifully hosted by And Now In Colour’s William Vandyck who played a superbly fey character, avuncular and ineffectual to the ridiculousness he purported to preside over. The series got a few complaints (from the sort of people who genuinely think Feedback takes their views seriously) but it was certainly a cut above most Radio 4 comedy, and all Radio 4 panel games.
A typical King Stupid
recording session
Fans of the show assumed it had been given the chop, but with a change in Radio 4 management, came a reprieve. The show was granted a second series, but some changes were made to protect the innocent.
William Vandyck was dropped as host, replaced by pseudo-dyke Sue Perkins, a decision which ensured that a steady stream of confused Cakeshopper girlies with identical dyed hair, dayglo anoraks, sensible shoes and bumbags attended the show every week. The old adage of letting your cunt rule your comedy rearing its head once again, but, hey, it makes up the numbers.
Cakeshoppers…
(© The Cartoon Network)
The show’s title was changed. Some of the complainants of the first series were mortified that such an obvious and offensive pun was allowed to be broadcast on dear old BBC Radio 4. One wag countered the complaints by declaring that the show was "‘king brilliant – let’s have another ‘king series". Whether the show was retitled for this reason is unknown but, as the 99p Challenge title gives rise to lots of uriphagic jokes about Sue Perkins squatting over the panellists’ faces and pissing into their opened mouths (‘I shall now straddle you and distribute my "p"’), we can expect more complaints from offended Radio 4 listeners whatever the case…
Original King Stupid producer David Tyler deferred his task to Sarah Smith who presumably needed the work after the League of Gentlemen chucked her off their second series in favour of Jemma Rodgers because she had a nicer arse. Smith is only a competent studio producer at the best of times (as anyone who’s sat through her ridiculously unrealistic retake-decisions at comedy recordings can easily testify) but, well, someone had to do it.
Sarah Smith. The
only photo we’ve got of her…
Everything else remained the same. Same theme music, same sort of rounds. As per the first series, three sessions were scheduled, at each of which they recorded two shows (with free crisps and wine served in the intervals by veteran producer Geoff Posner). The first recording’s guests were Tom Binns (a King Stupid regular) and David Schneider (‘from "The Peter Principle"…’, said Sue Perkins during her intro, although Schneider himself insisted on this being changed during a retake to something more well-liked from his CV – ‘I have to work’, he added disdainfully).
The second session used the talents of Richard Herring (for both shows recorded) and David Quantick and Mel Giedroyc (one show each). The decision to allow Simon Pegg to appear in every show was somewhat misguided, but they needed his popularity vote. Asked, after the recording, what had happened to William Vandyck, Pegg muttered some stale, unnecessary (snipy) comment about him ‘clearing away the plates on the second floor’. The recordings also featured in-"jokes" about Vandyck’s ousting (mainly when Sue Perkins fluffed a line). Vicious bastards, comedians. Can’t trust them to stick up for their fellow laughter-makers...
Perkins, Binns,
Schneider, Pegg, Quantick, Giedroyc and Herring…
Herring was originally booked to appear in the final session too but was dropped by producer Sarah Smith because, as far as she was concerned, he 'intimidated the other contestants’. In a bemused note on the Lee & Herring forum, Herring asked anybody who happened to be in the audience for that session for their thoughts on the matter…
Well… We attended the session in question, and here are our thoughts. But first, a bit of background information.
This is roughly how the quiz thing works: Kevin Cecil and Andy Riley write a basic script with questions which has nice big gaps for the participants to write in their own lines of amusement. They bring these in with them on the day of the session and spend all afternoon rehearsing the show. As an emergency back-up, Cecil and Riley also write comedy answers to their own questions so that, if any of the panel can’t deliver the goods (or their amusement doesn't get a laugh) they can fall back on the seasoned backroom lines. It’s a meticulous operation which can presumably be very easily thrown off-track by too much improvising during the recording itself.
The supposedly ‘intimidating’ session was actually fantastic. For once, the show actually achieved a genuine rapport – ex-flatmates Herring and Baynham knew exactly what made each other (and their audience) laugh and it was great to see the pair jamming together again. Herring and Perkins are also old mates and lots of in-jokey amusement flowed twixt them too (as in a sequence where Herring serenaded Perkins with a song from their university days called ‘My Penis Can Sing’). Herring perhaps used the word ‘cunt’ a few more times than constituted wit, but a cunt in the mouth of a fey Somerset bloke is hardly going to offend or intimidate anyone, especially not the audience who enjoyed every second. ‘You’re much better on the radio’, shouted a wag.
The only intimidation would have been felt by those members of the panel who needed to rely solely on pre-scripted or rehearsal-led material – people like David Quantick (great comedy writer, lousy performer) and a barefoot Mel Giedroyc (no Joyce Grenfell, let’s be honest). Neither performer was booked for the final session however. Already chosen for that recording was Armando Iannucci. Wow! A line-up featuring Herring, Baynham and Iannucci, produced by Sarah Smith? Why, it would have been just like the old days – back when comedy was good.
Sidetracking, but staying on the subject of intimidating behaviour, Sue Perkins took time out at the session to make a nasty joke at the expense of the only true fans she’s got – the Cakeshoppers. She played up an idle comment posted on said website about the supposed ‘tension’ between herself and producer Sarah Smith during the previous week’s recording. All very odd because this supposed tension wasn’t even mentioned by the bona fide site-users and, in fact, Sue Perkins herself posted the message. ‘Anyone here from our (sic) website?’, she asked. Not a single L.U.G. stirred. ‘We’re arranging a special session afterwards so you can come and beat me up’, she sneered. One day, she may just get her wish.
Sue Perkins and some
fat dyke or other
After that second session, everybody seemed to be in a jovial mood. The whole production pounced on the nearest pub (apart from Sue Perkins, who dodged the Cakeshoppers’ non-existent threats and schmoozed off somewhere with professional lesbian Rhona Cameron) and drank until last orders – which gave them about twenty minutes due to the session over-running again. The general feeling was that it had been a good recording with perhaps only Quantick not giving his all… Theories were put forward about the pitfalls of including too much stuff worked out during the afternoon rehearsals, the art of deviating from the script and the benefits of including performers who could improvise. All was happiness.
So what the hell happened? At what point did all the back-slapping turn to back-stabbing?
Herring was very upset over being dropped from the show, and who can blame him. The reasoning behind the decision doesn’t stand up to even the idlest scrutiny. The real reason is pretty simple to work out though: Sarah Smith lets the first show over-run dramatically with her debatable production skills. The second proves difficult to edit with the constant deviations from the script. Smith gets a bollocking from her superiors. Smith panics, searches for a scapegoat to blame, chooses someone with whom - after all their artistic tussles on Fist Of Fun - there’s no real love loss and...Bingo… Retaliation big style from a power-crazed, gushing, middle-class, middle-aged woman.
The final recording was very straight and unremarkable. Smith was on her best behaviour, giving the impression of being efficient. Richard Herring was replaced by Jack Docherty (‘From The Strangerers and The Creatives…’, twatted Sue Perkins, ignoring his role in Absolutely, arguably the best comedy sketch show of the last two decades). David Tyler (who almost killed Docherty’s career with his mis-production of the final Absolutely series) wandered around backstage looking important, obviously waiting to lead everybody to the aftershow drinkies. Pegg’s entire hoard of family and friends had also turned up (probably for the same drinkies) and created a false economy of laughter and cheers at his entire pre-scripted performance, prolonging the myth that he’s a Comedy Great (rather than a bland, pedestrian sub-performer getting cheap laughs by making kitch observations and references that most of us grew out of by 1993).
Herring’s absence wasn’t mentioned. None of the assembled cast could even bring themselves to joke about it (somewhat curious as Perkins had even made a joke alluding to Tom Binns’ absence from the second session, claiming he’d been ‘sacked due to his poor performance’ the previous week). We wondered if we were the only ones who’d even noticed Herring’s absence until we overheard a very angry gentleman in the audience in front of us explaining quite loudly (and ungentlemanly) the whole politics of the situation to his girlfriend. He seemed to believe that Simon Pegg had a lot to gain from Herring’s departure.
Which set us thinking… When Lee and Herring were shafted by the On The Hour team (full details in EDIT NEWS / ON THE HOUR) they claimed that the general attitude from their erstwhile colleagues was ‘oh, sorry – it’s a bit embarrassing’ - aside from Patrick Marber who seemed pleased because it meant he could assume more power over the project and writing. This is the impression we got from that final recording. We’ve always thought of Simon Pegg as Patrick Marber with a trendier haircut anyway. A career-obsessed performer sucking up to whatever looks like it’s going somewhere. Just our opinion, obviously. Zoe Ball has proclaimed Pegg a ‘comedy genius’. Who are we to argue with that vacuous cunt?
Ball, like Sue Perkins, is part of the current gushing breed of performers, so disinterested in television that they assume ‘comedy prowess’ amounts to little more than making stupid gestures with your arms while talking.The day after the final session a message was posted on the Lee and Herring forum (presumably from Pegg-fan Sian Woollybully) which stated that Simon Pegg wished it to be known that nobody on the panel knew that Richard Herring was going to be dropped, especially not himself, honest... Paraphrasing a bit there but, y’know… It doesn’t take a genius to work out the politics behind this action. Nice to see that the PR-fuelled media is influencing its more prominent players’ egos into rewriting history so promptly. Quick - pass the buck, protect your investment…
We’re pretty sure the 99p Challenge team found the whole situation ‘a bit embarrassing’ too…
So there you go. That’s the best ‘insider gossip’ you’re gonna get from us. A shameful tale, proving beyond all doubt that petty in-fighting, self-serving vendettas and tedious producer-politics are always much better on the radio.
Two comedy writers waiting patiently for the next
issue of Christ’s Fat Cock to come out
NEXT WEEK: WE EXPOSE THE SECRET NEWS QUIZ PAEDOPHILES AND SUGGEST THAT LOUISE BOTTING’S MONEY BOX IS ACTUALLY HER VAGINA STUFFED WITH COINS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE DOESN’T ACTUALLY PRESENT IT ANYMORE…
Interesting that
Simon Pegg’s name is placed before Baynham’s and
Herring’s isn’t it…
REACTIONS TO THIS ARTICLE FROM THE FORUM...
Disinterested Posted Wed May 10 11:27:09 BST 2000 by
Anonymous
The word 'disinterested' does NOT mean 'uninterested'. It means 'neither interested or uninterested'.
Posted By The Lexicographer on Wed May 10 12:48:47 BST
2000:
>The word 'disinterested' does NOT mean
'uninterested'. It means 'neither interested or
uninterested'.
disinterested adjective
having no
personal involvement or receiving no personal advantage, and
therefore free to act fairly
a disinterested observer/judgment
a piece of disinterested advice
uninterested adjective
not interested, see at interest
Posted By Anonymous on Wed May 10 12:57:29 BST
2000:
Yes, that's what I was getting at.
Posted By The Corpses
on Wed May 10 13:06:01 BST 2000:
We knew that. Where have we used it wrongly?
Posted By Anonymous on Wed May 10 13:32:15 BST 2000:
From Comment, the 99p
show:
"[Zoe] Ball, like Sue Perkins, is
part of the current gushing breed of performers, so disinterested by
television that they assume ‘comedy prowess’ amounts to
little more than making stupid gestures with your arms while
talking."
Makes no sense unless you incorrectly read
'disinterested' as 'uninterested'. I'm certain there are others, but
that's the only one I could re-locate.
Posted By The Corpses
on Wed May 10 16:09:41 BST 2000:
In that instance, we weren't saying Ball looks bored; we were saying that her bland persona suggests she doesn't care one way or the other about making her shows exciting or good.
Posted By Anonymous on Thu May 11 08:12:23 BST
2000:
Then you should have said 'disinterested IN' not 'disinterested BY'.
Simon
Pegg/99p
Posted Wed May 10
17:47:50 BST 2000 by Richard
Herring
Although it is very nice of you
Corpsemen to defend my showing in the 99p Challenge (My only
performance of this millennium - to be sacked after it did leave me
rather concerned that I might never perform again). I think there is
some truth in what you say about the producer. However I don't see
how you can justify the comments about Simon Pegg. I am sure he had
nothing to do with it and actually e mailed me personally to express
his disbelief. Whatever you think of him as a performer (and I think
he's extremely funny) I don't think that gives you a right to
speculate about him being some kind of evil Machevellian monster.
You are certainly wrong to think he wields that kind of power or
influence. This is only Radio 4 and he was only a panellist on the
show. Don't turn him into a scape-goat just because I was.
Keep
up the critical appraisal, keep up the knocking sacred cows, but
make it based on fact and opinion of work, rather than trying to
second guess imaginary conspiracy theories.
I
thought the stuff about the Boosh smacked a bit of jealousy about
them having girl fans. I can see why you are suspicious of them as
an act, and you make some reasonable points about them, but I saw
their Arctic Boosh show this year and thought it was extremely funny
and innovative. And I have no interest in being cool (as you may
have noticed) or in people who think they are)
Simon Pegg/99p
Posted
By Bargain Hunter on Wed May 10 18:45:20 BST
2000:
Only 99p? Bargain! I'll take three, please.
Simon Pegg/99p
Posted By Rob S on Wed May 10 20:31:00 BST
2000:
Ok, please bear in mind I'm not the author of the article, but I would like to reply to some of the points Rich has made...
> However I don't
see how you can justify the comments about Simon Pegg. I am sure he
had nothing to do with it and actually e mailed me personally to
express his disbelief. Whatever you think of him as a performer (and
I think he's extremely funny) I don't think that gives you a right
to speculate about him being some kind of evil Machevellian
monster.
I don't believe the authors were speculating about
Pegg being a monster, merely stating their own opinions about the
current state of the comedy world and were using Pegg as an example.
This article is possibly guilty of confusing some of the
issues...
You'll notice that the paragraph beginning
"Herring was very upset over being dropped from the
show..." makes very definite statements about why you were
dropped from the show (ie Sarah Smith's actions). The remaining
text, which I believe you've misunderstood slightly, discusses how
the attitudes and actions, or rather inactions, of the cast were
similar to those of the 'On The Hour' team. Everyone is keen to back
the winner ('protect your investment') and diss the loser ('clearing
away the plates on the second floor'). You were very much the loser
in this sorry situation Rich and this is a very worrying trend in
the comedy industry, with no basis on what counts -
talent.
> You are certainly wrong to think he wields that
kind of power or influence. This is only Radio 4 and he was only a
panellist on the show. Don't turn him into a scape-goat just because
I was.
I *know* the authors do not believe Pegg was
responsible, or that he would use that kind of power. If you read
the article carefully, they're talking about their opinion on Pegg
and how they feel he has similiar traits to Patrick
Marber.
Remember, Marber didn't have any real power over the 'On
The Hour' situation either.
Given Simon Pegg's remark about
William Vandyck perhaps the views of the authors are
unsurprising.
> Keep up the critical appraisal, keep up
the knocking sacred cows, but make it based on fact and opinion of
work, rather than trying to second guess imaginary conspiracy
theories.
> I thought the stuff about the Boosh
smacked a bit of jealousy about them having girl fans.
Well
Rich, this is a bit of lazy argument, which is probably aimed more
at me than the authors. If it was a case of jealousy, I don't
believe they would of bothered to go into such great detail on all
the other points, nor would they be able too. Given your knowledge
of the authors Rich, would you honestly say that sounds like them?
Do you really believe they're that superficial?
> I can
see why you are suspicious of them as an act, and you make some
reasonable points about them, but I saw their Arctic Boosh show this
year and thought it was extremely funny and innovative. And I have
no interest in being cool (as you may have noticed) or in people who
think they are
Fair enough - if that's
your opinion.
May we include your comments in an update of the
Boosh article?
Simon Pegg/99p
Posted By Richard
Herring
on Thu May 11
07:02:54 BST 2000:
Of
course you may use my comments.
The thing about the jealousy was
more of a joke really (a cheap shot I believe it would be
called)
I think the fact of the matter is that the next week's
panel were confused about why I wasn't there, and actually too
unsettled by it to even talk about it amongst themselves. It was
certainly weird.
I don't think Pegg and Marber are similar. For a
start Pegg is an excellent comedy actor. I don't think he is driven
by the same kind of ambition as Marber. But then what do I know? I
am only using the evidence of my own experience of them both.
I did read the
article carefully. I still don't agree with your interpretation Rob.
But on the whole I am very pleased that the audience of the show
thought I was funny and my dismissal was
inappropriate.
Simon Pegg/99p
Posted By Rob S on Thu May 11 09:45:28 BST 2000:
>The thing about
the jealousy was more of a joke really (a cheap shot I believe it
would be called)
We guessed that, but others probably
wouldn't.
>I think the fact of the matter is that the next
week's panel were confused about why I wasn't there, and actually
too unsettled by it to even talk about it amongst themselves. It was
certainly weird.
>I don't think Pegg and Marber are similar.
For a start Pegg is an excellent comedy actor. I don't think he is
driven by the same kind of ambition as Marber. But then what do I
know? I am only using the evidence of my own experience of them
both.
Well, that's what the authors were doing. We've
already established your opinion is different from
theirs.
>I did read the article carefully. I still don't
agree with your interpretation Rob.
Well that interpretation
of the article is more or less how it was supposed to be
interepreted. I admit, it's not the strongest piece on this
site...
> But on the whole I am very pleased that the
audience of the show thought I was funny and my dismissal was
inappropriate.
Yup - besides, I think you've got other things to worry about today, eh Rich? ;)
Posted By Beccy
on Thu May 11 15:59:50 BST 2000:
This is what I find
frustating about this site, the fact that you are expected
to/supposed to interpret everything in a particular way. How boring
is that? And arrogant?
Interpret
means 'to offer an explanation' why can't we offer varying
explanations?
Posted By Rob S
on Thu May 11 16:17:41 BST 2000:
No that's fine Beccy, I was just was trying to make clear what the authors were trying to communicate... if you want to interpret it differently, that's fine - Free thinking actively encouraged - you have to expect some defense if other people believe you have got it wrong.
Posted By plussy on Fri May 12 23:55:47 BST
2000:
lets be honest here... you are continual cunts towards pegg but have no such qualms about herring... for christs sake look at the graphic emblazening this page just fucking drop your antagonism towards pegg... we get it you despise him....big deal... channel your energy into something else.... for fucks sake its not as if pegg (who i quite like) is any threat to your sacred cunts....
Posted By mortin on Sat May 13 04:22:35 BST
2000:
plussy has a point. there is a lot of Herring
suckling on this site. and the corpses always reply to him when he
posts.
And they complain about sycophancy.
Posted By Richard
Herring on Sat May 13 14:38:27 BST
2000:
Surely the whole point of the forum is that people
can say whatever they like. If you think I deserve to be slagged off
then don't wait for someone else to do it.
I agree with you about
Simon Pegg. I like him. That's why I started this strand. I think
there are better things to slag off.
Plus the number of people
who are joining in the debate shows to me that he is very well known
(and popular).
Also, it seems the corpses answer pretty much
everyone (including Simon Pegg) who writes here. It's a forum - it's
here for opinions. Not just to slag everyone off in an equal
fashion.
There's no sycophancy involved. Believe me. These guys
couldn't be sycophantic if their lives depended on it.
There's plenty on here knocking me and Stewart
anyway. I like that. It is good to hear criticism as well as
praise.
Posted By Miffy on
Sat May 13 20:33:09 BST 2000:
>I
agree with you about Simon Pegg. I like him. That's why I started
this strand. I think there are better things to slag
off.
Yep, surely everyone there are comedians who really
make your blood boil? Who just infuriate you?
I find Simon Pegg
quite appealing if truth be known and can't really think of any good
reason to dislike him and this is something that might annoy people
but I'm quite comfortable and happy with my optimistic opinion on
this subject.
I can't think of many
current comedy actors (and with the except of Spaced, this is the
only medium most people have seen him in, if that makes sense) who
are anything like *good*, so I do think that Simon Pegg, Kevin Eldon
and Julian Rhind Tutt are the ones who excel in sitcom/sketch show
land. Given that Simon Pegg was first a standup, I think he's not
bad at all. I mean look, at the other standups turned actors like
Reeves and Mortimer, Ardol O'Hanlon (post FT of course), John
Thompson, Eddie Izzard, Brian Connelly - ok I'm scraping the barrel
now but you get the point!
So, lots of opinions there. Baroness 'Plussy' was our favourite. Just for the record we really didn't mean to imply that Pegg was personally behind Herring's sacking, more that the current trend towards easily editable (and digestible) comedy (and Pegg's fame as a commodity) meant that he was rather protected from the situation. And we still find it somewhat odd that he felt the need to parade his non-involvement on a public forum. Sorry if we didn't make that clear. We wrote the article with episodes of King Stupid playing in the background, bemoaning the loss of the plate-clearing William Vandyck...
We stand by our defence of how the show should have been, 'Herring-suckling' or not. We did state in the article that our main bugbear was that the osmotic comedy created by a fusion of comedy performers who know each other's strengths (and weaknesses) made for a more interesting show. A 'family atmosphere' almost. Look at Baddiel & Skinner Unplanned for further evidence. Unless you write for Time Out, in which case look in the mirror and attempt to justify what you see. This attitude was killed in favour of the inclusion of performers such as Pegg who was really only there as a 'selling point'. We would still much rather have heard Herring, Baynham and Iannucci surfing in-jokes and collectively-spawned humour than Simon Pegg doing his kitsch 'reference comedy' about the characters from old TV shows becoming London Mayor (and getting a round of applause from his fans for doing so).
Surely Richard Herring isn't now suggesting that a 'success' like Pegg is a good thing. We would suggest he rewatches a certain routine which he and Stewart Lee once wrote for A Stab In The Dark (recently purloined by Danny Wallace for his BBC 'Funny Talk' webpage) about the tedium of such kitch-reference-humour.
Sarah Smith's edit of at least one of the Herring-featured shows (the other is, at the time of writing, yet to be broadcast) manages to slice out most of his actual contributions. Hell hath no fury, Rich...
Just before the original version of this article went up, the 'What's The Point Of Simon Pegg?' thread appeared on the forum. We did write a conclusion piece to the silliness but eventually decided against including it for one reason or another.
Actually, no, fuck it, Sian Woolaway wants to read it, so here it is...
|
COMEDY IS SUBJECTIVE
Comedy Is Subjective. Yes, and Ignorance Is Bliss. The point
of Simon Pegg Do you know the point of Simon Pegg? If you can think of one, please add your suggestion to the list.
An innocent enough query,
we thought. We were amazed and depressed at the level of the
subsequent ‘debate’. All those articles on the site
about the insidious plebbing-down of the media and the PR lies which
attempt to turn the comedy business into a safe, artless,
commodity…and what raises the most fury? Whether or not
there’s a ‘point’ to Simon Pegg. Irate Pegg fans were rallied into
action, all seemingly from the ‘Spaced Out’ mailing
list, screaming their fury at the mere idea of us even daring to
question his genius. Nobody seemed to understand why we chose to
diss their hero. ‘I would have thought that somebody who
sets themselves up as a Comedy Warrior would spend their time
complaining about somebody who deserves it!’ moaned one
such fan… Our reasoning behind posting the
subject was basically a personal reaction to the ubiquitous presence
of Simon Pegg in today’s comedy – a presence which
doesn’t appear to have any bearing on reality. He’s an
adequate actor / performer to be sure. But we recall a time when
this didn’t automatically win you awards or the unchallenged
adulation of comedy fans and industry twats. If we’d wanted to
be cryptic we’d have posted the subject ‘Why Pegg,
and not Robert Bathurst or Lee Cornes?’ but
‘What’s the point of Simon Pegg?’ seemed
rather to sum it up in a flippant (and vaguely self-mocking)
way. The debate descended very quickly
into a no-winners slanging match. The editors of this site have
limited web access so it fell to Rob Sedgebeer to deal with the
argument we’d inadvertently created, winding up the devoted
fans by continually repeating a simple mantric request:
‘Tell us exactly why you like Simon
Pegg?’. Also
involved in the fracas were Sian Woolaway (nee
'Woollybully') , Nick Lee, (‘webmaster’ of
the afore-mentioned Pegg site), somebody calling herself
‘Spacedgirl’ (but who insisted that it
wasn’t because of any devotion to Simon Pegg
necessarily), and several other fans of varying degrees
of loyalty to their hero. Subject: Re: The point of
Simon Pegg
As for the reports of Simon 'sniping' about other comedians - where have you heard this? He's never, to my knowledge, said anything less than complimentary about anyone. He seems too bloody *nice* to slag anyone off. Comedy, surely, is subjective - what makes you laugh doesn't necessarily make anyone else laugh. As for 'the point' of Simon Pegg, you haven't really come up with an argument about why there isn't 'a point' to him.... What's the point of this website?? To needlessly slag off people who don't deserve it? I doubt you've written and starred in a Bafta nominated 'sitcom', have you? So shut up and start talking about someone who really does deserve it. Sian We never intended to make a big thing of Simon Pegg’s ‘snipy comment’ about William Vandyck (sacked host of King Stupid – now The 99p Challenge) and, chances are, if the article which mentioned it had been published on the site before the debate started then it wouldn’t even have been a talking matter. We prefered to call the remark ‘unnecessary’ and, obviously it didn’t particularly ingratiate us to him as a spokesperson for his generation. This isn’t to suggest that he’s always making such remarks but we found it insensitive, nasty and far too typical of a lot of backstabbing within the media which, with so many insiders keen to needlessly slag off ‘unsuccessful’ performers while ingratiating themselves gushingly with the nice money-making ‘successes’, is actually more slimy and intolerable than the weedy bickerings of us fans. We were fans of King Stupid and could write several thousand words about why William Vandyck’s tenure as host was better than Sue Perkins’ presidal over 99p Challenge. Peter Baynham did mention to us producer David Tyler’s reasons for dropping Vandyck and they turned out to be the exact reasons why we adored him (no surprise since Tyler was also responsible for getting rid of a lot of the reasons why Absolutely was so fantastic). It isn’t just Pegg who has dissed Vandyck – several comedians of his ilk have basically said ‘Naawww – William Vandyck didn’t really do it for me’. We disagree, obviously, but this opinion isn’t subjective – it’s actually a searing indictment of the very glue that holds comedy together. Very few of today's comedy performers and writers have yet spotted that if you want to do a genuinely anarchic show then there has to be a basic down-to-earth premise to rest it on. King Stupid worked because Vandyck’s fey, avuncular, presence made the ridiculous black humour of Baynham’s material more ridiculous and blacker (and the same went for the other contestants – Tom Binns’ daft blokey humour sounded dafter, Morwenna Banks’ silly injections sounded sillier…even Pegg’s bits sounded a bit grander) because there was something solid there – something which suggested that they shouldn’t have been allowed to be doing what they were doing. With Sue Perkins’ characterless prattling delivery this was lost. Indeed it was almost totally reversed – instead of the stern but ineffectual schoolteacher presiding over a bunch of unruly kids it now seemed like four disinterested teachers and one hyperactive spoilt child. The balance was gone. A good analogy being the unnecessary need these days to make all children’s TV presenters look 'cool' and 'hep' – almost kids themselves – when a nice cosy Brian Cant figure would be better and teach future generations a few manners. Trying to make everything 'fashionable’, ‘up to date’, ‘with it’, etc, is sad enough in itself (a look at Channel 4’s genuinely unnerving Slave proves this point) but with comedy it is totally unnecessary anyway. Comedy has never been ‘cool’, and on those occasions when a PR team attempts to make it so to cash in on a studenty fad or somesuch, then it's invariably killed stone dead, generating a lifeless (but very popular) product which subsequently does a runner with your money. Sue Perkins is ‘cool’ (i.e. popular despite not having done anything particularly great since that trailer for Light Lunch ), William Vandyck is not (despite being a brilliant, yet comparatively unknown, comic actor). This means nothing to the Pegg fans of course. Had they been present for the 'clearing away the plates' amusement they would have chuckled politely all the same. The fandom in question seems to be held together by crumbly elastic bands and spit. So much so that the merest flippancy on our part revealed yet another crack in the framework. Rob Sedgebeer made a jokey crack at one point about the direness of Pegg’s 1995 sketch vehicle, We Know Where You Live, just as a no-possible-argument illustration. There followed reams of defences, justifications and explanations, all absolving Pegg of any kind of blame. We Know Where You Live was actually not that offensive. It was dull, lazy and an affront to comedy, yes, but at least it was tucked far away in the schedules and deservedly ignored. Now of course it’s been wheeled out and draped in ‘Oh look, it’s got Simon Pegg in it and he’s famous’-type garnish. Not just by Channel 5 but by the fans. 'Everyone has to start somewhere', they insisted in his defence. Yes, but only an idiot (or a knowing opportunist) would allow it to be broadcast. One posting suggested that the mere fact that WKWYL gave opportunities to 'young unknown gag writers' meant that it was automatically worthy of praise. We disagree – we were rewarded for their efforts with a show which was lazy and rubbish, no better than BBC2’s Bruiser or C4’s Barking. ‘But this was five years ago!’, screamed the defenders. So what are they trying to say – that Simon and the others were ‘still learning their craft?’ Maybe if they’d been more keen on creating good comedy rather than rushing to get their foot in the door, their seminal outing would have been something for the cast (and their fans) to be proud of… Simon Pegg (and the others) were grown adults at the time. If David Baddiel could do a fantastic ground-breaking radio series when he was 24 (and he did) then there was no reason not to have expected the WKWYL cast to deliver something of equal merit. There’s no excuse for laxity, whatever your age. Moreover, defending rubbish work (on the basis that somebody has since gone on to ‘better’ things) smacks of sycophancy of the worst kind. But of course it doesn’t matter because, as his fans were keen to point out, Simon Pegg himself publicly dismisses that work of which he’s not proud. Well, so what? In his business, all news is good news (even, as one forum posting slyly suggested, our 'debate'). It’s all exposure, it all contributes to his ubiquitous presence and it all contributes to his ‘Everybody’s Talking About Him’ reputation which, in a media where nobody knows good comedy from bad, is an bloody enviable position to be in. And even if one of his projects turns out to be dire and unwatchable then he has his child-army of hangers-on and die-hard fans to make public excuses for it. He still wins. Pegg prefers to leave We Know Where You Live in the past, claimed a defender. We wonder, if it had been the same show but an unexpected 'success', would he now be proud of it? After all, nobody actually sets out to make a bad comedy show. We’ve found that the reaction from the audience and media can drastically colour the participants’ views. We had a theory for instance that Coogan, Baynham and Iannucci knew full well that I’m Alan Partridge was a bit crap, but when everybody went apeshit-positive over it, they blindly followed suit. Does anybody know how Simon Pegg personally rates Hippies or Big Train? All we’ve really heard from the various players was that ‘they had a lot of fun’ doing the two projects (a defence usually only reserved for dismal failures). It could be argued quite easily that neither show was much better than WKWYL (for various reasons) but they did receive the unlimited support of TV companies and fans. It was our standing joke about Pegg (long before the site went up) that his autobiography might be called ‘I Was Thrilled To Be Involved In It’. None of the comments posted to the forum did anything but bolster this opinion. No, of course Simon Pegg wouldn't turn down the chance to work with Mayall and Edmonson. Or Coogan. Or Morris. Or any of the major players. Shame he never thought of reading the scripts before committing himself, but never mind. At least he got his thrills. Conversely, why was he actually chosen as a bit part player for the Bottom film? For his ‘fantastic comic acting abilities’ perhaps? For his ‘brilliant early 90s stand-up’? No, he was chosen because he’s a ‘rising star’. And that’s a far better commodity in this business than talent or experience could ever be. This is a malaise of the media which needs exposing. Comedy Is Subjective. Yes, and Jeffrey Bernard Is Unwell… Incidentally, could anybody who still seriously thinks that the BAFTAs, the British Comedy Awards or any of those bloody PR-fuelled media wankfests, are any genuine indication of talent or creativity please close the door behind you as you leave the site? The excuse that Simon Pegg was ‘award-winning’ was used several times in the debate as undeniable proof of his excellence. This too is an appalling alternative to actual opinions, not just in the bleatings of his defenders, but in every review magazine you ever read. Only a fool would actually believe that the phrase 'Bafta-award winner’ or ‘Perrier nominee’ has anything other than a money-making hype attached to it. Even the reviewers who use such phrases know it’s all bollocks. But when the fans start aping such behaviour then…well, come on, WAKE UP!!! Simon Pegg joined in the debate of course. Not sure how he discovered the site but presumably somebody tipped him off. The Spaced Out mailing list continually boasts to new members that ‘Simon may be reading…’. We would hope that he’s doing so with a great deal of suspicion. Subject: Re: The point of Simon
Pegg Thanks for discussing me on your site, I'm honoured to be worthy of such a slagging. I was a little concerned about the 'snipy' comment, it is completely unfounded. Anyway, I'll leave the debate to rage on. I shan't be back, I doubt my ego could take it. The site looks great, keep up the good work. Best wishes, Simon Pegg Bless him. Sounds like a good
reaction to us – a raised eyebrow at the ridiculous prattlings
of ridiculous comedy fans (on both sides of the debate).
That’s how we read it
anyway. Sian Woolaway later insisted that Pegg was 'hurt' by the comments.
Well, maybe if he was a bit more used to criticism
than the unnatural praise he'd hitherto drowned in then he'd have brushed it off
easily.
A pointless strand of the debate
argued over whether the ‘What’s the point of Simon
Pegg?’ posting was questioning his work or his right to exist.
Our self-evidently ridiculous wording was described by a few people
as ‘insensitive’. And people accuse us of taking
comedy too seriously! Less flippant all round were our
‘subjective’ views on Spaced - possibly
a first for the media as the latter featured proper
opinions which didn’t just spew hyperbole down
people’s throats: Subject: Re: The point of Simon
Pegg Simon Pegg appeared in Guest House Paradiso because he didn't want to turn down working with Rik and Ade? Yep, that's him all over. The point of this website is to shake up comedy fans a little and get them thinking about where comedy is going. We've no problem with people thinking differently - if you *genuinely* love the comedy Simon Pegg, Al Murray, the Boosh, et al come up with, then fine. But we refuse to be carried on the flotsam and jetsam of a comedy industry that measures its prowess in BAFTA Awards, viewing figures and fawning, say-nothing reviews copied off press releases. As for having a go at 'people who deserve it'? What, people like Iain Lee and Rory Bremner? These people are self-evidently awful, and are slagged off all over the shop anyway. Pegg deserves criticism for more specific crimes - the standard defence proffered in retaliation being 'Yeah, but he's really nice', which won't win you any debating prizes. (And, in any case, being nice is simply common courtesy - it doesn't mean they have a right to make television programmes.) And saying comedy is 'subjective' is the ultimate admission of defeat. *Everything* is subjective. That's the whole point of having an argument. Any argument. It's all part of the soup. Received wisdom, for example, states that Spaced was the most ground-breaking and important sitcom of the past ten years. SOTCAA says it was lazy, shallow, full of knowing-wink references to what allegedly constitutes student/youth 'culture', and crammed with Simpsons-esque pull-back-and-reveal type jokes without any of the pacing that this device demands. Your move.
The subsequent ‘moves’ challenged our
dismissal of the gimmickry which we felt Spaced
over-used and which succeeded, whether deliberately or not in
disguising its weak script. Nobody agreed that this was the case,
arguing that they were obviously essential to what made the show
work. One posting defended such production techniques as
‘eye candy’ which is a great phrase but a
somewhat shallow argument. But at least it was an
argument. When one fan indignantly announced ‘There’s
going to be a new series of ‘Hippies’ whether you like
it or not’ we got really disheartened. In the same
way as we felt disheartened when we heard that Let Them Eat
Cake had gotten a second series. Or how we feel when
anything gets a second series on the merits of its performers’
or writers’ CVs rather than the actual script
or end-product. We’ve heard too many terrible insider stories
about know-nothing commissioning editors, producers and heads of
comedy/scheduling which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that
nobody, in positions of power over television and radio
output, knows what the screwing hell they’re talking about.
The indignant comment above seemed to prove that the artless Birtism
philosophy that’s fucked comedy to death over the past few
years is now extending to fans. We didn’t want
Hippies to be rubbish. We were actually really looking
forward to it. We wanted it to be the most fantastic comedy show
ever created (a wish we hold out for all
comedy
shows incidentally, regardless of any personal irkings we have about its
cast).
Creatively it was seemingly killed from the outset by bad
planning. Unlike the template for Father
Ted - a simple premise which was, by the writers’
admission, an empty canvas to spatter with their own inventiveness
(the philosophy being that nobody knows what priests really
get up to) – the set-up for Hippies demanded a bit of proper research (and
an actual interest in the subject matter) to carry it through.
Unfortunately the jokes (such as they were) about late-60s sub-culture simply
tended to revolve around the same received blethers about
long hair, free love, generation gaps and hypocritical radicalism.
Perhaps a send-up of the public’s limited perception of the
period, but more likely written that way so as not to alienate
anybody from what they usually expect. As such, Arthur Matthews, as
scriptwriter, was guilty of the same sweeping, lazy, assumption of
all TV twats - that viewers only feel safe when confronted with
received opinions. The whole production had a cynical contempt for
the possible erudition of the audience (which, since we now appear
to have droves of sycophantic whitewashers spreading goodwill over a
shallow project, seems sadly justified). The whole thing was draped in hype
– from the usual ‘from the creators of Father
Ted’ bollocks to the actual casting of (the
‘popular’) Pegg and Phillips in the main roles without
really giving them decent characters or lines. So Pegg mugged about
merrily while Phillips played her usual
can’t-be-fucking-arsed-to-think-of-a-voice-these-days
character. Neither exhibited the ultra-rare gift of turning a shite
script into gold (which can happen – Kevin Eldon’s
usually very good at this) and neither looked at the script
and thought ‘…hold on, this is rubbish’ (or if
they did they kept it to themselves). It would appear that both the
writers and the actors just assumed that each other knew what they
were doing (and the BBC had total trust in both parties due to their
popular track records and impressive CVs). Eleanor Bron who appeared in one
show as a Cynthia Plastercaster pastiche now very much regrets doing
so, incidentally. The reaction to
Hippies (from actual comedy fans rather than Pegg
fanatics) amounted to little more than a disinterested shrug. If
somebody had actually tried to put into words the various faults of
the series at the time then maybe the forthcoming series could have
learnt from it. But it won’t. The
we-love-anything-Simon-Pegg-does fawnings of his fans are going to
help produce another bland series from a cast and crew who are
convinced that they’ve got it right. Thanks, guys. We once chatted with a TV insider (a
big Linehan & Matthews fan / mate) around the time of Big
Train and expressed grave misgivings about the rubbishness
of the script and the laziness of the general production.
‘Yeah, but the thing is…they know
that!’, she said, by way of an excuse. This sums up what
we’re talking about. Linehan and Mathews, Steve Coogan, Chris
Morris, Simon Pegg, Sally Phillips – these are people who have
‘passed the point of no return’ in that they are
systematically lauded as geniuses of their craft whatever they
produce. So keen is everybody to herald their latest success
(perhaps fearing that their fragile worlds – of lucrative TV
contracts or cocooned fandom - will come to a premature end if they
don’t) that they instinctively paper over the cracks, making
excuses for something which is obviously not very good. This allows
the PR to write itself. The fans who moaned at us, saying
‘Well I didn’t
see any hype surrounding Simon Pegg’ have yet to
realise that, in fact, they are the hype. With
every defence they generate it from their fingers and
toes. ‘Don’t you realise that Simon
was very big on the stand-up circuit in the early
90s?’, they grumped. Jump-cut to said fans
in the early 90s, sprawled out
on a fluffy pink duvet, dreaming of the day Donny Wahlberg scoops their
boney 12-year-old bodies into his arms... Comedy? Whassat?
This PR isn’t just writing
itself, it’s rewriting the past. ‘Comedy Is
Subjective’, cried our forum dissenters. Well, we thought,
maybe
they’ve got a point. So, in order to find
out for sure, we fed all the data from the Pegg
debate into the great big unrealistic-looking computer in our undersea base at Corpses House.
It came up with a fascinating tickertape equation –
as far as ‘subjectivity’ is concerned there is only a ‘positive’ and
a ‘negative’. There are no stops in
between (or if there are then it
just amounts to some arse sitting on the fence or not caring either way.
As such, he or she is immediately disqualified from the competition and deliberately targeted by
a Radio Times audience survey). ‘Subjective opinions’ (a
tautology anyway – how can an opinion not be
subjective) however don’t lend themselves to the considered
distillation of FACTS. Opinions about facts can not be
subjective (as in ‘It is of my opinion that fire is
hot…it is of my opinion that without air I will
die…’ etc). Our favourite non-negotiable fact is
‘It is of our opinion that the comedy world is in a
piss-poor state…’. Only a careerist or an idiot
would disagree with this fact. A careerist will make the best of (or
even be thankful for) the poor state of comedy to further their
position or prospects. An idiot will just walk around proclaiming
that everything is fantastic and perfect as it is – after all,
they find it funny, it makes them feel cosy. So screw
the killjoy Corpses for trying to spoil it for them. Simon Pegg is a product of a failing
system. The existence of this failing system is a fact. The way Pegg
fits into it is – now that’s the
subjective bit. We feel that his presence, his importance and
his continued success are typical of the current lazy standards of
expectation. His fans, if they’ve gotten as far as actually
pondering on the shallow state of the media at all, may feel
he’s an exception to the rule. The fact remains however that things
are a bit fucked. A bit more cynical questioning (and less
all-round, feel-good, toadying) is what’s called for. When
people are so adamantly keen to rally around, defending a situation
which is crappy, then it actually goes way beyond mere hype and
enters the realms of propaganda and World War II-style ‘Keep
your chin up, doll’ twattery while the bombs fall all
around. At this point our big
unrealistic-looking computer started to emit sparks and smoke and
served us each with a nice hot chocolate like on The
Goodies or something. Cheers. It can have escaped nobody’s
attention that we have high standards, comedy wise. But this
isn’t to say that everyone else wouldn’t be catered for
if our evil plan to stop the laxity and pleb-pleasing of the comedy
world ever comes to fruition. On the contrary, you would have
better comedy to watch. A better balance between trash
and erudition. You would even have better Simon Pegg vehicles
which would justify his obvious popularity. Then we could all be
happy. Comedy Is Subjective. Yes, and Life
Is Life (La la la la la). Eventually, the debate settled down
a bit. A few fans did actually take up Rob’s challenge,
searching within themselves for actual reasons why they liked Simon
Pegg. They did so with a great deal of irritation but they managed
it. One message complained that dissecting such things amounted to
tedium. Another suggested that comedy can actually be killed
by such a discussion. In fact we found it all quite fascinating and
it did help put the whole caboodle into some sort of perspective.
An hilarious missive accused us of
dissing Pegg to try and be ‘in with the in crowd’
(y’know, like Jesus Jones or somebody). We can’t even
begin to imagine what this ‘in-crowd’ might consist of.
He also suggested that we were behaving like ‘Rick’ in
The Young Ones, being stupidly anarchic for no reason.
Well we recall a scene in which Rick sucks up sycophantically to a
stupidly cool sociology lecturer in a desperate bid for popularity.
Bingo. We have literally nothing to gain by
questioning Simon Pegg’s fan-bestowed status. It wins us no
friends, it invites abuse and indignation. The
‘in-crowd’, if it exists at all, is crowding around
Pegg’s arse, licking desperately for all it’s
worth. People have accused
Hippies of being a Young Ones rip-off incidentally. Nigel Planer
disagrees. He reckons it's a fantastic
sitcom. We almost believed him too until he hinted
that he'd quite like a part in the next
series... Our Pegg cover-page didn’t
raise too many eyebrows. One Pegg-fan described it as
‘a bit gimmicky’
(which we found genuinely amusing). Another asked for a personal copy. The
illustration and ‘99p Challenge’ article were prepared before the debate kicked
off incidentally, just in case anybody thought we had it in
for him. One posting balked at Rob’s
suggestion that Pegg’s fans should provide a detailed analysis
of his work and why they find it so amazing. She then accused us of
having done no research for the site(!) and suggested that if we
were so interested in the current state of comedy then we
should ‘provide a break down of the things we don’t
like about his work, detail for detail’. Hence the article you’re
reading now. In the main though the general
consensus amongst the Pegg-devotees is that although the
forum debate had little merit, they were at least
pleased to have their viewpoint tested. The debate
was finally forcibly shut down by Rob Sedgebeer (after
the lunatic fringe attempted to appropriate for their
own means). Subsequent piss-take threads entitled
'Isn't Simon Pegg Wonderful' and
'Do You Know The Point Of The Corpses?'
(the latter described by one posting as 'literally
sub-11 O'Clock Show whimsy') were less
interesting... Subject: Re: The point of
Simon Pegg (Excerpt): ‘Nuff said, we guess… Finally then, here is our opinion - our ‘subjective’ opinion – about Simon Pegg himself. No, of course we don’t hate or despise him. And, if he had remained, in the eyes of the glowing media, a pithy little bit-part comedy actor (a job at which he excels) then we really wouldn't have a problem with him. We like pithy little bit part comedy actors. They allow us to go 'Oh look - it's thingy - he was in whatsitfukingcalled, wasn't he?', and that would be that. But we've arrived at a stage where people with enough career-chutzpah can sneak into the main game and become ‘well-known’ (and acquire an army of indignant fans, both within and outside the media) without actually having proven themselves worthy. A true Simon Pegg fan (and we don’t for a second doubt that there are a few) will surely ignore all the hype, the PR, the received opinions, the awards and everything…and if he’s still tops in their world then fair enough. We scraped away all the hype etc and discovered a pithy little bit part comedy actor underneath. And the more people of his chancing calibre that are promoted to the top positions (and the more gushing fans who latch onto the hype and tell him he’s great even when he’s not) then the less ‘good stuff’� will actually occur in the comedy world. In the long run this is the sort of attitude that allows stuff like The 11 O’Clock Show in. You may not want to believe this , but it’s true. Of course we’re just using Pegg as an example. There’s a hundred of him out there. And, if you do the maths, for every Pegg there’s a million fans who would baulk at the very idea of us thinking differently. This puts us very much in a minority. So why worry about us? Why feel threatened? If your heroes are as good as you think then nothing we say is going to change their position in the comedy world. The award ceremonies have money on their side. All we have are opinions. Good luck, Simon. Enjoy the rest of your career. We’re tired now. Goodnight. |
So there you go. That's all the lazers and the Lazenby...
We finish here though with a pastiche of the Corpses/Herring situation which made us laugh a lot. It appears comedy might not be so dead after all...
|
SUBJECT: SOTCAA CONSPIRACY THEORY HERRING Once I knew a beard with a
cunt! |
See, it even has a punchline! This is a great bit of comedy which obeys the better rules of parody. The disdainful style suggesting that the parodist is so perplexed or bemused by the subject matter that subtlety isn't an option and he/she goes straight for the kill. Yet it's obviously written by an interested party (and one who was presumably there that fateful evening). Slightly let down by the 'topical' reference to the 'lovebug' but, y'know, still funnier than Simon Pegg.
Incidentally, although only intended as an affectionate send up of the silliness, the parody caused mass confusion and arguments throughout the thread. This only goes to show how dangerous comedy can sometimes be...
[FINAL NOTE: We've just heard that Simon Pegg is thinking of suing us. Can't be true - are there any legal precedents of people being sued because they didn't think much of Hippies?]