Attachments Posted Sun Oct 1 01:17:05 BST 2000 by 'Anonymous'




Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'PJ' on Sun Oct 1 01:19:46 BST 2000:

In case you haven't realised this is the new 'this life' - being endlessly repeated constantly to make sure you don't miss it, to stop ridicule from your friends: "What do you mean you didn'twatch attachments? I'm not your friend anymore, you loser? What? You didn't watch Eastenders either? You fucking bastard..."

What do i car anyway - i have to go to university or something equally as pointless.

Goodbye.


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Suiii on Sun Oct 1 01:25:17 BST 2000:

They even have a 'tie-in' website, like the one they're supposed to be creating in the programme. I haven't watched it myself, basically because I know for a fact someone at the Beeb was bored one afternoon and said "Ooooh!! We could make a drama about dotcommers! It's culturally relevant, and people will watch it if we make it like This Life" Bunch of twats. And what's this about a lesbian that sleeps with men, one of the main characters? If she sleeps with men, she aint a lesbian. I'd be willing to put money on the fact that she was supposed to be like the bisexual in This Life, but due to the popularity of Anna from Big Brother, they've decided to call her a lesbian instead, to boost audience figures. Poor, disillusioned BBC.


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'reg' on Sun Oct 1 02:52:21 BST 2000:

The rumour is, the writers went to beeb.com to do their research. The first question they asked was "so what does it mean when you 'forward an email'?"
Doomed from the start?


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Suiii on Sun Oct 1 11:56:03 BST 2000:

Oh yeah, that was another thing (even the bloody idiot TV reviewer picked this up) the To, From, and Subject lines of all the emails they received on the show were blank! Well done Beeb! You're fucking great, attention to detail all the way eh?!!


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Ailie on Sun Oct 1 12:46:44 BST 2000:

I watched the first wee bit of it and unless my eyes were failing me (which is a distinct possibility) there was a quick glimpse of TV Go Home.

Was there any irony intended, I wonder...


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Arma on Sun Oct 1 14:20:53 BST 2000:

Probly because Endemol has a 25% stake in Zeppotron, the company that writes TVGH. It was the 'logic puzzles movie' screenshot (though Penis Wars may have been more appropriate!)


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Al' on Sun Oct 1 16:42:37 BST 2000:

Is Attachments as bad as it looks? I've avoided it up till now on the grounds that I might have a coronary brought on by excessive anger. The Guardian seem to be viewing it suspiciously. Have they finally realized the emperor has no clothes or are they just hedging their bets?


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Sam D' on Sun Oct 1 18:03:51 BST 2000:

You know you want to watch it, Al!
I nearly kicked the telly in whilst watching one of the trailers.


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Suiii on Sun Oct 1 18:06:10 BST 2000:

'm just afraid it'll be like that C4 thing, 'Killer Net' which was so full of computer related inaccuracies that I almost had a mental breakdown watching the thing. I deplore badly researched television.


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Chris Lyons' on Sun Oct 1 23:01:26 BST 2000:

Have a look here for Attachments baiting-

http://www.everyonehatesattachments.com/

And here for the offical site -

http://www.seethru.co.uk

They filter out the CRAP and then mix it up with their own stuff. Yes.


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Justin on Mon Oct 2 19:45:16 BST 2000:

Episode 1 was awful. But there are two other "comedy" connections with it:

1) David Walliams is in it.

2) Episode 2. Written by Amelia Bullmore. Yes, the Amelia Bullmore from jam and Big Train. And (sadly) writer of three episodes of This Life. Still, that's one less than Amy Jenkins cobbled together, so why shouldn't she? I suppose.


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'zaber' on Mon Oct 2 23:08:36 BST 2000:

It's probably the most accurate depiction of computer usage I've seen on TV. It's not often you get the phrase "Animated GIF" or "traceroute" in a drama.

Of course, this doesn't mean it was very accurate, just better than other computery TV.

And it wasn't at all interesting, either.


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'PJ' on Tue Oct 3 12:41:11 BST 2000:

David Walliams should not try serious acting - it doesn't suit him.


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Dr. Hackenbush on Tue Oct 3 23:20:18 BST 2000:

I found some of the non-computer plotlines quite amusing (such as the trickery employed by that HR woman or whoever she is).
Who is the foxy pseudo-lesbian and what has she been in?


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Jon' on Wed Oct 4 09:55:19 BST 2000:

I thought it was alright. It wasn't plumbing the 'This life' depths, it had a proper story to it. DW was the best though, because his charcter isn't a stereotype. Mind you I don't understand what the firm is supposed to do, and I work in computers myself. Perhaps I'm not very good.


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Peter O' on Thu Oct 5 11:15:46 BST 2000:

Fully go off topic go, but http://www.seethru.co.uk has a "rant" about women's portals. Such sites are just reproductions of the stuff in women's magazines, which sell extremely well, so what's the point of "her" rant? Exactly? Eh? Or indeed this one.


Subject: Re: Attachments [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'ribbit' on Thu Oct 5 11:59:01 BST 2000:

The phrases "trying too hard" and "out of touch" spring to mind. David Walliams shouldn't try straight acting? I think he should have left comedy well alone too...


[ Add Your Comment On This Subject ]
[ Add Your Comment Quoting Message ]