When I first saw it I thought it was Chris Morris himself,but its not.It may well be quantick or some other bitter bitter man.or woman.although i suspect its a man.
>Does anyone here know who's behind tvgohome.com?
According to the copyright notice at the bottom of the last-but-one page (http://www.tvgohome.com/1905-2000.html), it is written by Charlie Brooker. Though the most recent one is credited as "by a man who's gone anon again".
>When I first saw it I thought it was Chris Morris himself,but its not.It may well be quantick or some other bitter bitter man.or woman.although i suspect its a man.
Bitter maybe, but a lot of it's very funny. Could it be someone at RT? My money's on Polly Toynbee. Or Dr. Mark Porter.
Justin, don't rule out Alison Graham from the list of suspects.
>Justin, don't rule out Alison Graham from the list of suspects.
It's much too witty to have been her work.
Besides I wouldn't want to give her the satisfaction (in the unlikely event she reads this) that she could be involved in something so (for her) "subversive, controversial and dangerous".
Hasn't this been discussed elsewhere on the forum? Charlie Brooker used to write for /shudders/ the 11o'clock show, didn't he?
I find TV Go Home very funny. Seriously bitter, but very funny.
Justin, maybe AG uses her Radio Times column just to keep a toe-hold in the media, but 'TV Go Home' represents her real work?
I'm convinced it's her. It has all the hallmarks.
you fools. it's obviously john peel.
j xxx
Well thanks Cuba! I'd never noticed that copyright at the bottom before.
A quick search brought up;
www.miguel.org.uk/charlie.html
and superkaylo.com/super/index.htm
For further evidence, see the tv-obsessed nature of the work, and lashings of bitterness.
It IS Charlie Brooker. End of story.
Read the small print under 'Cunt'? Ouch!
Yes,solved.It is brooker.I checked on the register site and he owns the domain name
>Yes,solved.It is brooker.I checked on the register site and he owns the domain name
How do you check who owns domain names?
either with a whois (i forget how you do it, rob can prolly tell you), or you try to register the domain name yourself (or even just check if it's been claimed) and they should tell you "no, you cannot register pants.com, it is already owned by Dominic Diamond" or similar.
oh! back in the knife drawer...
Mr Diamond was good on Gamesmaster...
ok - he wasn't...
hmm - almost as cringeworthy as that ginger bloke who did music live (you know the guy - from "don't try this at home")
No, because i had a drivel filter. ;-)
Mister Diamond was not good on gamesmaster.
He was pants.
Apart from the accent.
That was quite good.
the accent was 90% of the performance.
But surely everyone must agree, the way he said 'pant' was the funniest thing ever.
No?
Right, just me then
It was brilliant.
PANts. Incredible emphasis.
I would just like to point out that I wrote one bit of TV Go Home once. A pound to the first person who spots it. Another pound to the first person who spots where I nicked the gag from.
Cheerio
Steve
It was good at first but it just got tired. It's now very repetative. Easy to make up your own. You just mention a minor celeb and something nasty, e.g.
4:15pm "Royle Cuntflap Impressions" - Caroline Aherne's new panel game, in which she does impressions with her front funnel and the rest of the cast of the Royle Family (in character) help out by providing funny voices.
>4:15pm "Royle Cuntflap Impressions" - Caroline Aherne's new panel game, in which she does impressions with her front funnel and the rest of the cast of the Royle Family (in character) help out by providing funny voices.
Hmm. I think you've just proved that it's *not* so easy, Peter. Or, at least, it takes more than the 15 seconds you spent on the above to come up with something funny. 30, perhaps.
If my message had been funny, it would have contradicted my point.
You cock.
>If my message had been funny, it would have contradicted my point.
Hmm. I thought the point you were trying to make was that it's easy to knock off these formula gags - and, hey, here's one as an example. But it wasn't very good, and TVGH's are generally better. So is your beef with the format of the spoof, or the quality?
>You cock.
You're a charmer, sunshine.
"Aquatextile Savegoose Challenge", which appeared in the 19th May edition (archived on the site at http://www.tvgohome.com/1905-2000.html) is the Funniest Thing Ever. And it's not lazily parodying an established format, but rather a bizarre hypothetical gameshow that might be made in Japan. Some of the programs introduced are startlingly odd.
Further evidence of goodness - it has introduced, in the character of Nathan Barley, a beautifully observed parody of a certain type of cu**; a piece of observation so merciless and true that it has been adopted by NTK (www.ntk.net) as instantly-understandable shorthand, and trendy WAP-enabled twats will soon be called Nathans by everyone.
Furthermore, even in the more conventional parodies, it condenses everything that's wrong with a show/genre into one hypothetical programme (see "Lock, Stock and Ten Turkish Toddlers" this ish, or "Daily Mail Island").
But Peter O's attempt at showing how easy it is to write is neither well-observed, nor startlingly odd, nor up to the quality of the actual publication. It's like me saying that Monty Python was easy and predictable and then backing up my argument by writing a skit that wasn't much like Python, and not as funny.