The 11ocs was clearly devised as an attempt to do 'topical' comedy aimed at younger people who don't understand Rory Bremner's somewhat esoteric (and largely unfunny) references. It would not surprise me if Channel 4 and Talkback had wanted Chris Morris and Armando Iannucci to reprise The Day Today three times a week. Obviously, that never happened (thank God, it would never have been able to improve on that), but the powers that be assumed that if you assembled a bunch of new writers, relatively inexperienced performers and producers, then you'd strike gold with the youth market. And you might even discover a new Alan Partridge, of course...in other words, Ali G.

But, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the news is getting increasingly unbelievable in any case, far more than it was in the era of Day Today. How can you parody some of the stuff that turns up in the papers? In many cases, you can't. Which explains why 11ocs can only resort to cheap abuse/homophobia/calling nurses "fucking pigs". It might get talked about a lot, and get mentioned on Right To Reply, and it might even get your series producer a rubbish sitcom on ITV. But it doesn't make it funny.

Three times a week is much too often. Why doesn't Talkback cut its losses, and devise a new once-a-week show, while investing some money (which with Pearson on board will be easier to come by, I'd have thought) on sitcoms and other projects. Much of 11ocs was simply embarrassing viewing, the sign of frightened, desperate and inexperienced writers unable to come up with enough good material in time. After all, Week Ending on Radio 4 could scarcely scrape together enough hilarity for 25 minutes a week.

As for the presenters (Lee, Donovan, Gervaise, Garner), it was too much too soon. None were ready to front such a show with so relatively little experience. Donovan has now left, I understand, but I shudder to think what she'll bring us next. Lee simply looks terrified on camera. As for the others, it looks like sixth form revue.

Overall, 11ocs was an interesting experiment, but I think it's fair to say it failed. It might have got healthy viewing figures, but then, so did Mind Your Language in its day. It's time C4 invested in proper ideas.

> Use this thread to justify your existence in the comedy world.

No. I'd rather not.

You know, I'd be only too happy to post a detailed explanation of *my* time on the Vietnam tour-of-duty that was the 11OCS, including lengthy descriptions of precisely *why* I thought the end result was often plain wrong, were it not for the staggering, odious, and entirely unwarranted arrogance inherent in statements like the one above. Are you all on coke? Or does this empty megalomania get you hard?

Ohh, yeah sugar. I'm coming. I'm coming up the spine of my high horse. Woo hoo.

Maybe you don't realise it, but you *occasionally* sound like a pack of obnoxious, self-important, predictable, ill-informed, knee-jerking cunts, and as such it's often rather hard to take anything you say seriously. You have interesting points to make, but ruin the debate before it starts by ranting like bilious drunks. Your essays are also far too long: scan-read fodder. Learn to edit yourselves.

And you should apologise for your "Open Letter" to Lee, Herring, and Murray. It made you look like imbeciles.

Remember: while you grind your collective blunt axe all over this gaudy website, some of us are concentrating on writing decent comedy. The shittiest of shitty stand-ups has done more to justify their existence in the comedy world than you.

Jesus. Gah.

So why do I keep coming back to this website? Hmmm. It's annoying, but at least it isn't boring. Which is the same reason people tune into Chris Moyles or read Gary Bushell, I suppose.

Proud of that?

Charlie Brooker
www.tvgohome.com

Ahhh... so the people who make it have no sense of humour! That explains it.

Whereas Bremner had/has (is there another series in the pipeline?) some good satirical writing behind him now and again (I invariably enjoyed Bird & Fortune's bits) 11 O Clock show has swearing. and nothing else. I assumed that it appealed to teenagers, particularly those who are slow to develop and snigger at rude words. But then I know of at least once person fitting this category who finds Chubby Brown ("swearing for fun and profit") rightly unfunny but enjoyed 11OClockShow.

More research needed.

I was aghast and worried when I discovered that Dave Gorman (in my opinion a fine comedian if his live shows are a guide) had contributed to 11OClockShow. It certainly wasn't obvious. Perhaps he needed the money and was embarassed to write anything that could be pinned down to him and so offered some queer jokes that would blend in with the rest.

The 11 0' Clock Show failed because most of its humour didn't have a target. The writers seem to me to be rather amateurish. They were under the impression that if they referred to pensioners as 'coffin dodgers' we'd all laugh at their shamelessness. But comedy doesn't work like that. Good writing incorporates word play and rhythm. All The 11 0' Clock Show writers did was to pad the script out with expletives. In their scripts someone wasn't drunk, they were 'bastard' drunk, or 'bastard' ugly. Moreover Gary Glitter isn't a nonce, he's a 'fucking' nonce.

The big flaw with 11OCS is that everyone in it is out to get noticed. Compare this with The Day Today, in which all of the main collaborators had another career of some description to fall back on (be it jazz singing, radio DJing or being in the armed forces), and concentrated on making good comedy rather than making themselves famous. Everyone involved in 11OCS is falling over themselves to get noticed, and it shows.

"Maybe you don't realise it, but you *occasionally* sound like a pack of obnoxious, self-important, predictable, ill-informed, knee-jerking cunts, and as such it's often rather hard to take anything you say seriously."

Do you just mean the Corpses, or all of us, Charlie?

Furthermore...

"After all, Week Ending on Radio 4 could scarcely scrape together enough hilarity for 25 minutes a week."

It was bloody good in 1988, when Newman& Baddiel were writing it. But maybe you need people like Thatcher & Reagan around to be your targets. I dunno.

A once-a-week topical show could work.

>Furthermore...
>
>"After all, Week Ending on Radio 4 could scarcely scrape together enough hilarity for 25 minutes a week."
>
>It was bloody good in 1988, when Newman& Baddiel were writing it.

No, that's probably fair enough Jon - I really meant the show's creaking final years in the mid-90s - didn't make it clear. But then again, back in the late 80s, there was a good deal less obvious "What a week it's been"-type fare on Week Ending.

>"After all, Week Ending on Radio 4 could scarcely scrape together enough hilarity for 25 minutes a week."

Which is simply a way of saying that 11ocs was a "brave" (i.e. stupid) idea in the first place, if it was three times more difficult than something already known to be impossible.

By the way I think the new TV Go Home is a lot better.

> Do you just mean the Corpses, or all of us, Charlie?

The Corpses. While I agree with *some* of the points in their 11OCS comment piece, they systematically undermine their own argument by peppering the text with outright errors presented as fact, and commenting on things they clearly know nothing about (such as what audience members who laugh at a given joke are actually *thinking* - a mistake they repeated in their fatuous TGP 'Open Letter'), before finally disappearing up a red-raw arsehole of vitriol by writing "may you all die and rot in hell" in reference to anyone and everyone who worked on the show.

Well, hang on -- they're including me in that statement. And oddly enough, I find this (together with their subsequent demand for a "public apology" from all 11OCS staff) personally offensive.

The Corpses know nothing about behind-the-scenes events on that show, or the processes involved in getting it onto the screen. They have every right to find the material gruesomely unfunny and objectionable -- there were many instances where I'd agree with them, and others where I absolutely wouldn't -- but their claim that "we know what we're talking about" is wrong.

When it comes to the inner workings of either the 11OCS or the mind of a live audience member, the Corpses know squat -- and to pretend otherwise is both deluded and misleading.

Ultimately, it's hard to work out the point of their whole 'campaign'. The Corpses keep promising 'Direct Action', but what good is this going to do aside from (potentially) promoting a bunch of ill-tempered amateurs with an overwritten website?

And they're doing it all in the name of comedy. Well ho, ho, ho.

If they really want to improve comedy, why don't they shut up, sit down, and try to write some, instead of behaving like self-seeking, humourless, back-seat drivers with far too much time on their hands? It's a question they must hear a lot, and one they still can't answer.

Part of my new job (as a co-founder of zeppotron.com) is to produce *precisely* the kind of comedy that makes me laugh. Apart from various TV thingies, including an adaptation of TVGH, I'm working on a range of comedy websites and animations. No, not stuff like hahabonk.com. We can't write it all, so zeppotron as a whole is looking for decent writers. If the Corpses (or any of you) want to email me some samples of work ([email protected]), I'd be only too happy to read it, and if I think it's funny, use it. Quality is the only requirement.

Well, Corpsey babies?

Charlie Brooker
www.tvgohome.com

Charlie, why not specify which bits of the Comment article you feel are fair, and which bits you think are clueless conjecture?

Because it would take ages, and because I really couldn't be f~cked. I think what I've said thus far sums up my position well enough: some good points undermined by too much undisciplined and inaccurate ranting.

I strongly object to the implication that anyone involved with the programme is directly responsible for the entirety of its style, tone, and content. I think that's a reasonable objection.

Still, fancy a screw?

> I think what I've said thus far sums up my position well enough: some good points undermined by too much undisciplined and inaccurate ranting.

Er, that, of course, sounds like I'm talking about myself. Thought I'd better point that out before someone else did.

God, I hate text.

>I strongly object to the implication that anyone involved with the programme is directly responsible for the entirety of its style, tone, and content. I think that's a reasonable objection.

...which is why we're asking for your side of the story. 'Justify your existence in the comedy world' is hyperbole for effect and clearly not meant to be taken literally. Having said that, comedians aren't owed a living in the comedy industry by virtue of wanting it - they are constantly accountable for what they do. Is that arrogance? Fucking right. We're comedy fans, and we want and deserve better.

And the 'Why don't the Corpses try to write their own comedy show and see how easy it is' argument has been answered ad nauseam, most recently in the thread called 'Why don't the Corpses try to to write their own comedy show and see how easy it is'.

So where along the line *did* The 11 O'Clock Show fuck up? Who was (and is) to blame? If we don't find out, it'll only happen all over again.

Come on, Charlie. You know you want to.

"And the 'Why don't the Corpses try to write their own comedy show and see how easy it is' argument has been answered ad nauseam, most recently in the thread called 'Why don't the Corpses try to to write their own comedy show and see how easy it is'."

Well, I don't think so.

> 'Justify your existence in the comedy world' is hyperbole for effect and clearly not meant to be taken literally.

Thought you were "against hyperbole"? Plus, like Jon, I don't think you *have* answered the question about writing your own material. I don't think you've answered it at all.

Go on Corpses. You know you want to.

We're going to continue this argument on the 'drunk on self importance' thread, seeing as we're going to get nothing out of Charlie.

Everyone else, please continue to use this thread to add your comments and ideas about The 11 O'Clock Show, as per our original posting. Thanks.

I reckon the actual reason why Dave and Charlie refuse to discuss their bad times on 'The 11 O'Clock Show' and highlight exactly their feelings about who's responsible is because they don't want to jeopardise any future work they may acquire from either C4 or TalkBack (or indeed any people who work for these companies who may have a position of power over them at any point in the future). Put eloquently, they don't want to piss their own beds.

This is fair enough of course. We've asked comedians for behind the scenes goss about media disasters before now and gotten very helpful (and enlightening) emailed replies, usually followed by 'but for God's sakes, don't tell anybody it came from me' stuff afterwards which has usually precluded us from using it as proof of any of our arguments. It's all very helpful though. At least we know our theories are usually correct...

We did point out that 11 O'Clock Show people could exorcise their demons anonymously. But perhaps people are a bit too paranoid about it rebounding back on themselves. The last media insider to make anonymous comments on our forum was BBC producer Adam Bromley. And look what happened to him... There's a dark irony here though - a producer of a show involved in parodies of well-known celebs being fired from his work for doing a parody of somebody that most people have never even heard of. The moral? Don't fuck with Dave Gorman's PR it seems. Er, just our opinion. Don't take it seriously...

So perhaps we were asking too much by requesting actual three-dimensional reasons why 11 O'Clock was doomed to failure. But I doubt whether meeting with Charlie or Dave would yield further info which they'd actually allow us to share anyway. Both have told us that their stints on the show were unhappy. This appears to be the case for most people who have contributed. It's a miserable show all round. It's joyless. But people will continue to contribute. The show will be coming back.

This 'Plan of Positive Action' re: the show has been fucked up by people deliberately missing the point, keen to protect themselves. And we're arrogant. Nobody cared about all the threads other people started, calling Iain Lee a skinny wanker. Why, I bet it even raised a wry chuckle at TalkBack. We're no threat to that lot. Nice one, guys. Hope you enjoy the new series.

And if you don't, why not take Charlie Brooker's advice and write something better. That'll sort everything out. If you need an outlet, we gather 'The 11 O Clock Show' is on the lookout for new writers.

Finally, Charlie and Dave, if the SOTCAA eds ever decide to have a stab at writing comedy in any 'professional' sense (unlikely at the moment since we're both coke-addled toss-donkeys -or whatever sub-Morrisism is Brooker's chosen phrase of the day) then we won't be publicising our efforts through this site. In fact, the day we start writing will be the day we close the site down for good in fact - we certainly wouldn't be able to do both without looking like hypocrites. Given the choice I think you lot would prefer free unreleased Python stuff to us writing 'professional comedy'. And we'd rather share that stuff than pretend to have any talent for writing comedy. This isn't why we set up the site. We set it up as a celebration of the comedy we adore and to sound off a bit about the stuff that irritates us. As we've explained before, the 'comedy bits' like the Fringe thing are just light relief and not intended as a means to breaking into the comedy scene. The arrogant hyperbole ('We are always right - you can all burn in hell') only has to be taken as seriously as you want it to. Of course it's over the top. But our intentions are honourable.

But setting up a PR fan site about yourself (Dave) or inviting people to contribute material to a big comedy internet project, appointing yourself the sole judge of which bits are funny and which are not as a means to furthering your career (Charlie) - this is insidious, blatant, arrogance.

Just my personal opinion. Which counts for absolutely nothing in the great scheme of things so it's not as if either of you have to worry about it. Probably just another cocaine-fuelled fantasy.

And Dave - If you'd *really* wanted to chat with us, I'm sure Herring would have given you my phone number. If you thought it was that important. And yes, we were at the Riverside on the 17th. But you didn't approach us (even though Rob was there too) so we didn't approach you. We just wandered around, picking up all the 'Are You Dave Gorman?' badges people had thrown away. La la la...

And Charlie, just in case you were wondering, we are declining the proposed meet-up. We doubt you'd enjoy our company much anyway.

Gotten! GOTTEN!

Re: This and the other threads this chap's contributed to...I've never encountered anyone write so much and say so little in my LIFE!!!

Whatever your opinions about the previous series of '11 O'CLOCK SHOW' I am certain you're going to be pleasantly surprised by the next one.

Declaring an interest right away, I am one of the new staff-writers on the show, and the Producers Phil Clarke and Helen Williams are determined that the show be more 'writer-led' and not become a slave to the punishing schedule that a thrice-nightly show inevitably involved. No more desperate, hurriedly filme vox-pops, no more lowest-common denominator humour...There'll be proper satirical comedy with some thought behind it...This of course does not denigrate any writers efforts in the past, as someone who's worked on a good few donkeys myself, I know how good writers can be subverted by so many variables.

Give it a chance. Your patience might get rewarded..!

"There'll be proper satirical comedy..."

What, like Rory Bremner?

I can't wait...

When does it start? And is Iain Lee still presenting?

>There'll be proper satirical comedy with some thought behind it...

Sounds like hard work to me. Watching it, I mean.