no, its written by people who aren't very good with computers and are perceptive TV critics. if you dont like it, fuck off. its quite simple

Steve,i think the pleb thing is funny.
You can just imagine the types who write it.
The sort you cant resist intimidating on the all night bus!!

You can disagree with what's said.

You can dislike the writing style.

But "One of the worst sites on the web"?

Jesus! Where have you been? Just for not having any rotating gifs of kittens or pictures of bloated pink infants wrapped in blankets, this site must be in the top 2% in the world.

I love this website, and I disagree with most of what's said on here! (Sorry to state the obvious, but it must be done before sunset).

>Jesus! Where have you been? Just for not having any rotating gifs of kittens or pictures of bloated pink infants wrapped in blankets, this site must be in the top 2% in the world.

Hey, have you seen my nephew?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/t.emanuelfreedialup/jacob.jpg

>>Jesus! Where have you been? Just for not having any rotating gifs of kittens or pictures of bloated pink infants wrapped in blankets, this site must be in the top 2% in the world.
>
>Hey, have you seen my nephew?
>
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/t.emanuelfreedialup/jacob.jpg

Phwooarr!

Anyone who ever feels like criticizing the standard of debate in this forum should take a look at a Yahoo! messageboard...

Well, perhaps I overstated it a little. It's not not one of the worst sites on the web, it's just extremely poor. As for mongrel's comments that it's written by perceptive TV critics - AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHheurghfAHAHAHA! that's the most hilarious thing i've ever read. Let's compromise - they are neither good with computers NOR perceptive TV critics. They're totally bloody useless. Probably postmen in real life. (although at least postmen perform a useful service)

My dear, sweet, pretty young Uncle. I know you mean well, but please re-consider. SOTCAA really are quite perceptive people.
They perceive things as they watch telly and then they huddle together and concoct dirty little opinions about them. Then it's just a simple matter of displaying these opinions on their website. From there, the likes of you and I can poke fun at them as we giggle like tipsy bridesmaids in-front of our screens at their absurdity.
Then, some fairy dust and a twiddle of my thumbs, and bingo! My first erection.
Pass the chalk, it looks slippery.

Quite frankly, if anyone thinks that the SOTCAA articles are not perceptive TV criticism, they need only look at the work of the TV critics of The Observer and The Guardian (and other broadsheets) to realize the truth. The writing on this site is excellent - detailed opinions, reasoned argument and a wealth of knowledge and information about the subject.

It's going to take a lot more than some snidy naysaying and an 'amusing' name to convince me otherwise...

Question for Stephen X: Do you think that the Corpses are bad at writing, or do you just disagree with their opinions?

>>if anyone thinks that the SOTCAA articles are not perceptive TV criticism, they need only look at the work of the TV critics of The Observer and The Guardian (and other broadsheets) to realize the truth.

It's all very well saying how crap other critics are. However, this doesn't constitute a valid defence of SOTCAA.
I've seen this opinion somewhere else on the forum and I really think you people should be ashamed of yourselves. You disgust me, with your oily skin and dirty finger nails.
Don't get me wrong, I also find the stuff written by SOTCAA far more interesting than the TV pages of national papers. I don't agree with a fair bit of it, but then I'm a contrary bastard who often argues for the sake of it.
Anybody with any sense knows that the articles are predominantly written by slightly bitter people with a good degree of intelligence and an honest passion for comedy. They probably have a tendency, like any tribe of mortals, to cluster together and form group opinions, but I don't regard that as a huge crime. I just find it tedious.
But what of those who come here to belittle SOTCAA? Well, It is always an attractive pastime to certain types of people (of which I am one) to mock the class clown from a safe distance as he entertains his minions.
What else needs to be said? Ever? About anything?
Nothing, I've covered it all.
Come, suckle at my teat a while.

Oh, a critic critic! Marvellous.

A really defensible profession. One that really needs doing. Thank god you're here.

If there's one thing more loathsome and nasty than 'observers' (hanging around, silently, then criticising other people's work and skulking back into the shadows), it's an 'observer observer'.

Though the lofty seen-it-all stance of the critic might seem aloof enough to satisfy even the most rampant egotist, for some it's not enough. They must watch the watchmen, convinced that this elevates them even higher.

"laughing at the class clown as he entertains his minions..."

"Look at me! So high above you all."

Lonely up there, is it?

>Lonely up there, is it?

I have never laughed so much at anything on here. Well done. I found that post quite delightful.
Have you really got the arsehole as much as you're making out? I'm starting to hope not.
I'm being honest now. That reached Dr Hannibal Lecter levels of home truth revelations.
Come on though, when a group of people start going on about how television is for plebs, someone's got to attempt to be even more arrogant. I am that someone.
Tell me exactly what offends you about new people on here being surreal and sweary. Be honest. Is it simply because you don't find it funny?

>If there's one thing more loathsome and nasty than 'observers' (hanging around, silently, then criticising other people's work and skulking back into the shadows), it's an 'observer observer'.

By the way, Unruly. I hope you weren't suggesting that being critical of critics is wrong. That's the way it read, but I assume you were just lost in blind rage at the time and not thinking straight.
Calm down and do a bit of thinking, perhaps you might re-consider. I do mean to patronise you.

(I wasn't sharp enough, but here it is now)

>Oh, a critic critic critic! Marvellous.
>
>A really defensible profession. One that really needs doing. Thank god you're here.
>
>If there's one thing more loathsome and nasty than 'observer observers' (hanging around, silently, then criticising other observers work and skulking back into the shadows), it's an 'observer observer observer'.
>
>Though the lofty seen-it-all stance of the critic critic might seem aloof enough to satisfy even the most rampant egotist, for some it's not enough. They must watch the watchers watchers, convinced that this elevates them even higher.

Lonely up there is it, Unruly?

My God! Does that mean someone's watching me??????!!!!!!

An interesting question by anonymous: Do I think the SOTCAA lot are bad writers or do I just disagree with their opinions. Well, perhaps it's a little of both. The quality of writing (that is, the ability with the English language and how well the opinions are presented) is adequate although far from outstanding. The problems lies not just with the fact that I disagree with their opinions, but that the opinions are badly thought-out, unfair and betray a real lack of understanding of the programme in question. The "I'm Alan Partridge was rubbish" article was one of the most badly judged, ill-thought-out, unfair and mind-bogglingly inaccuarate pieces of writing i've ever had the misfortune to read. After reading it you keep wishing the authors would go back and watch the series PROPERLY this time - they must have had their mind on something else when they first watched it. Almost every point they made was nonsensical (like the bit about IAP not working as a spoof fly-on-the-wall documentary. IAP WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A SPINAL-TAP STYLE DOCUMENTARY!!!!!! Steve Coogan only described it as such on the Clive Anderson show because he was IN CHARACTER AS ALAN PARTRIDGE!!!!!) And than there's the bit about the supporting actors being wasted. WASTED???? What about the magnificent performances by Felicity Montague as Lyn and whoever it was that played Michael the Jordie? IAP has one of the most magnificent supporting casts I've ever seen in a comedy series, and it totally passed them by.
This would be almost tolerable if they accepted that this just there sorry opinions, but they go on to say that IAP IS so obviously crap, that anyone who thinks it's better than Knowing Me Knowing you (99.5 percent of the population probably) is a moron. How arrogant can you get???????

Signing my own death warrant, but he's spot on the Alan Partridge thing.

First Point: Criticising critics, or metacriticism, is probably what the Corpses do best, see the "Good Old Radio Times" and "Lazy Journalist Slags" articles.
Second Point: With the IAP article, they seemed to be more annoyed with the sycophantic praise garnered by the show than with the show itself. More metacriticism.
Third Point: You really *would* have to be stupid to say that I'm Alan Partridge was better than Knowing Me Knowing You.

Why should they be annoyed with the praise the programme garnered? People praised it not for "sycophantic" reasons, but because they LIKED it. And the reason they LIKED it is because it was BLOODY GOOD. Plenty of great comedy series have been critically acclaimed (Father Ted, Fawlty Towers, One Foot in the Grave,The Fast Show) but the praise isn't sycophantic and neither is the praise of IAP. They got praised because people LIKED THEM, and they LIKED THEM because they were BLOODY GOOD. And anyway, what's "sycophantic" praise got to do with the actual quality of the programme?
To get to your final point, I personally think IAP and KMKY are more or less equally good (although IAP possibly tops it...) but to say that anyone who thinks IAP is better (or vice versa) is stupid is incredibly arrogant and frankly just damned stupid. We are all entitled to our own OPINION, and all have our own PERSONAL PREFERENCES. Some people think IAP is better, some people think KMKY is better. It isn't a matter of stupidity. If you preferred white bread, you wouldn't call those who preferred wholemeal stupid. Well I wouldn't anyway...

>We are all entitled to our own OPINION, and all have our own PERSONAL PREFERENCES.

So, really you've just cancelled out your argument, seeing as theirs is one opinion and yours is another. Doesn't make either of you right, just means you've pointed out what's so good about comedy; something for everyone.

Feel free to swear at me, it's none of my business.

Surely it's as arrogant to believe that your own opinions are so IMPORTANT that they have to be in CAPITALS.
A minor point maybe, but please stop it. It puts me off reading your otherwise interesting posts

I've just realised what the problem is here.

I spend all my time on the forum, not the main body of the site, since I read it all when I first turned up, ages ago, and it's updated so infrequently.

Therefore, I associate someone being sweary, insulting and saying "I hate this site" as meaning "I hate this perfectly enjoyable comedy discussion forum".

Newer people are still freshly wound up by the contentious essays. They arrive and they're angry. OK.

But, temper your bile. It's honestly not all received wisdom / line-toeing round here. You can contribute without needing to be overassertively wacky or offensive. People will listen. We're not all 100% in agreement with The Corpses. If you hate the rest of the site, that's fine. You don't need to keep telling us.


Personally, I agree that a lot of The Corpses well-structured, diligently argued, expansively written prose is directed at saying "Will everyone please stop talking about XXXX (Simon Pegg, IAP, Dark Comedy, Filmic Direction) and talk about The Goodies instead?" Modern popular (popular = populist = pleb) comedy is seen as distracting attention from great old stuff, and is therefore held up as a bugbear. As if all the column inches currently being used to talk about The Parole Officer might suddenly be replaced by essays on Do Not Adjust Your Set.

I think this often comes over as little more than sour grapes about whatever's popular right now. (This isn't the motivation, I'm sure. It just sounds that way.)

However, it's the essays that drew me here in the first place. And so I'll defend the ones that floated my boat.

The topical comedy one made me beat my chest with joy. The edit news pieces are almost all immaculate. The celebration of Absolutely made me feel less alone. The script fragments from Saturday Night Fry went round on my e-mails for weeks.

Whatever.

I just thought the aloof tone of some of the newer posters ("This site is lame, suckers!" "You're all fish in a barrel to my rapier surrealist wit, fistfucks!") implied that no-one else here had spotted flecks of wayward logic or bloodymindedness in some of the SOTCAA articles, that we were all fools, agreeing with everything that was said by our mighty red-named masters.

Not so.

If you're going to stick around, why waste all your fire on insulting the site? There must be some comedy deserving a cutting turn of phrase or a pointless bit of cussing?

Ho hum.

Oh, and every other fucking corner of the web is full of shouty, surrealist arseholes. Usually this one isn't.

I know. When I heard that SOTCAA was closing down, I went looking.

*shiver*

Pardon me, Stephen X, but is it wise for you to criticise SOTCAA's 'standard of writing' when the postings above betray the fact that _your_ style is much weaker (technically and expressively) than theirs? If you know better than SOTCAA what good and bad writing is, why not lead from the front?

As for the Why IAP was rubbish piece, I loved it. It was beautifully argued and written. I disagreed with every word, though. I suspect that's the same for many on this forum. I also enjoyed the piece on Saturday Night Jack, even though I thought that SNJ was listenable mediocrity and nothing more. There's a difference between being upset by something because you disagree with it and being upset by something because it's poorly written. Stephen X is confusing the two.

>Oh, and every other fucking corner of the web is full of shouty, surrealist arseholes. Usually this one isn't.

Point taken. Although I've never come across any of the aforementioned arsehole population who were quite as good as me at their job.
I am encouraged by the fact that you considered the source of your anger and explained it.
You're right, my distaste for some of the opinions I found in the articles flavoured the way I approached posting on the forum.
I will no longer let this happen.
Can I just say though, before I start being rational in my posts, that you're a cunt, and I'd kick your fat head in if we met in a pub.
That's honestly it now, the anger is all gone. You seem like a nice bloke.

Thankyou. And you walk funny, eat your own hair and stink of fish.

That's that sorted.

Closet surrealist.
You regard the goose step as funny?

>Pardon me, Stephen X, but is it wise for you to criticise SOTCAA's 'standard of writing' when the postings above betray the fact that _your_ style is much weaker (technically and expressively) than theirs?
Now that really is unfair. I'm not writing essays or articles here - I'm just posting brief messages, which I type up fairly quickly, so it's unreasonable to compare them to long articles that have been written slowly and carefully over a long period of time as the authors consider and weigh up their opinions and resources.
I have written plenty of essays, reviews and articles, and I can safely say that writing is one of my strengths, and my technical and expressive styles are certainly not weak.
Say what you like about me, but I refuse to believe that I am a worse writer than the SOTCAA lot.

Yes, I *DO* know what a parking meters are.





(Sorry. I really couldn't resist that one)

Might be a good time to repost this one:

-----------------------------------------------------

Why we're here. Posted Fri Jul 27 08:19:56 BST 2001 by 'Evans'

A few points that might help explain why SOTCAA exists, and why it must exist.

1) From a historical perspective, popular culture is at its most vibrant, exciting and unpredictable when there is the least amount of mediation between the people who produce it and the people who consume it.

2) Culture will always be mediated in some way. In music, it's by the labels. In fiction, it's by the publishers. In TV it's by commissioning editors and others. By definition, the record label bosses, the publishers, the commissioning editors are not creative people. Their bottom line is not the same as the creative person. It is, quite naturally, profit. There will always be conflict between the creative person and the mediator, one of whom just wants to see his/her vision take shape, the other of whom wants the product to sell. The conflict is built into the relationship between creator and producer. As long as the non-creative end doesn't have the upper hand, it is a relationship that can work, allowing extraordinary individuals to say and do extraordinary things in front of millions of people.

3) Pop music is a perfect example of what this site is fighting against. In the early days of pop music, record labels had only the vaguest idea of what it was they were selling. All they knew for sure was that the kids loved it. In the eternal struggle between creator and producer, the creators had the upper hand, because the producers had yet to develop efficient ways of maximising the profit they knew was lurking in that vinyl. As the years have gone by, the mediators of pop music have figured it out - hormones+rebellion+sex+sentimentality=an absolute killing in the lucrative teen market. In terms of pop, the producers have now won. (This is not to say there is no good pop being made or released. Just that the days of interesting, provoking, carefree, often insane pop in the mainstream is no longer possible. Hence the fragmentation of the pop market into a myriad micro-genres.)

4) To comedy, at last. When Python was commissioned, no-one other than the six Pythons knew what the fuck was going on. When The Young Ones appeared, the BBC didn't really understand what this new generation of comedians was doing, but intuited that it was significant enough to warrant a series and commissioned just that. In that eternal struggle between creator and producer, as in pop at an earlier stage, the creators were winning because the producer were not yet hip to the best ways to sell this stuff.

5) The present - we may have crossed the line. We may be crossing it now. SOTCAA is concerned about this.

6)All the signs are there. It doesn't really matter whether you like Ali G, I'm Alan Partridge or Time Gentlemen Please. If you do, of course you must go with your instinct and laugh. But aside from your personal taste (and your defensiveness), you must surely wonder if these phenomena, and others, are symptoms - that the producers are winning. SOTCAA is right to draw attention to these programmes, along with disparate other phenomena, from Jamie Theakston to nostlagia TV to filed removed video to 100 Greatest shows. This is not a scattergun attack based on personal prejudice. SOTCAA is arguing that these are signs we should be reading, signs that may well signal something any lover of vital, unpredictable culture (in this case comedy) must surely be worried about. The manner in which these programmes and people arrive on our screens is every bit as important as what we thought of them when we consumed them. To use pop as an example again - you may love the vintage Spice Girls, but can you really ignore the cynical, demographically researched way they were assembled and marketed?

7) If you want to defend your ground over individual shows you like, then SOTCAA is clearly not for you. SOTCAA is attempting an overview of the popular culture industry as it stands at this point in history,using comedy as its focus because it happens to be the form both Corpses love above all others.
If you do not want to engage with the issues underlying SOTCAA - which have nothing to do with personal prejudices - then for God's sake do it. That's why this site exists. If not, then never visit it again - but don't complain when the producers turn comedy into the sickeningly cynical and predictable culture production line mainstream pop has become.

Good Manifesto. I like the roughly equal mix of fact and inspired fiction, it made the whole thing more readable.
Keep doing whatever it is you think you're doing, at least you're having a go at it, which is far more than I can say for me.
"SOTCAA is attempting an overview of the popular culture industry as it stands at this point in history, using comedy as its focus"
There really is beauty in ambition. The use of the word 'attempting' was just enough to stop me thinking you're completely deluded.
I wish you all the very best of luck with your goals.

I'm just glad that everyone on this forum totally agrees with me. (smug grin)
Why was the ending of Blackadder Goes Forth "hypocritical", and why did it make the corpses "sick"? I think it's very effective, mainly because it doesn't feature any closing captions (e.g "this programme is dedicated to the hundreds of soldiers who gave their lives in WW1" etc, which would have been a bit much) and the dialogue between the characters is bitter and bleakly humourous rather than sentimental. It could have been hypocritical and over-sentimental in the wrong hands, but there aren't any poignant monologues - it ends simply with the four of them going over the top.
It's a fitting end to Blackadder Goes Forth because the whole series has been about how bloody dreadful life in the WW1 trenches was. How would the corpses have preferred it to end - On a closing one-liner, with Blackadder, Baldrick and George still alive, and the audience chuckling away? Now that would have been hypocritical - it would also have been a dreadful insult to those that died or lost relatives in WW1. In a comedy series about the horror of WW1, you can't chicken out of the worst horror of all.

They could have left the slo-mo-running-shooting-dying section out completely. An empty trench, with the sound of gunfire, would have been more effective. The poignancy, for me came from Baldrick pointing out that some one could get a nasty scratch on the splintered ladder, then saying he has a cunning plan (did anyone else make the connection there?)

Aye. The actual last scene of dialogue is pretty well done. Htey just have finished it there.

Possibly the objection arises from the fact that it's ALWAYS trotted out as the greatest comedy pathos moment in the history of just about anything, when at best it's a slightly clumsy but well meaning cop out.

Similar bile is reserved for Del falling through the bar. An adequate bit of slapstick but not worth constant repetition as the sine qua non of physical comedy.

The thing itself is just average. The adulation it receives raises it to the level of a bete noire.

SOTCAA presents lengthy detailed eloquently and coherently phrased awfully perceptive articles that may not match your own opinion but at least make you consider it more deeply. on that note, stephen x, fuck off.

No they don't.

"Awfully perceptive?" HAH!

O.K, I admit there's nothing wrong with the actual standard of writing (apart from the bloody stupid use of the word "pleb"), but I still say the opinions are badly thought out, illogical and just plain stupid. I mean, saying that the TV Knowing me Knowing You is not as good as the radio version due to "mugging" - not only is this a baffling and stupid statement, but it isn't even backed up with reasons. Why? Because it isn't sodding true! Show me one moment - just ONE moment - in the whole six episodes when Steve Coogan or Patrick Marber "mug". Hah! You can't, can you my friends!
Arse! Arse I tell you!

I think you'll find "mugging" is subjective...

But they're 'badly thought out, illogical and plain stupid'. Again you seem to be failing to distinguish from a bad argument and a good argument with which you disagree. For me, the 'IAP is rubbish' piece is the latter, and I suspect that's the case for you as well.

>But they're NOT 'badly thought out, illogical and plain stupid'.

...is what I meant.

>O.K, I admit there's nothing wrong with the actual standard of writing

The standard of writing in SOTCAA articles fluctuates near the average level for an intelligent person. I don't need any capital letters to back me up on that either.
I call this level of writing 'The just about able to get away with sneering at plebeian thought processes level'. It's a little long, but I can't think of anything punchier at the moment because I'm only just at the aforementioned level myself.
Soon, with enough perseverance, I will reach the dizzying heights of the lower Enid Blyton stratum.

And beyond the furthest reaches of the Blyton Stratum, lies the Archer Echelon.

"Why I'm alan Partridge was rubbish" was a good argument? Hah! My big fat arse it was! It's one of the worst arguments I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. Every single point could be disproved. The "wasted" supporting cast, all that stuff about the fly-on-the-wall documentary (which it wasn't) format not working -Hah! Three big arses on a bench!

>"Why I'm alan Partridge was rubbish" was a good argument? Hah! My big fat arse it was! It's one of the worst arguments I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. Every single point could be disproved.

Well argue it then, don't just say that a point was 'arse' with no real reasoning. Write a proper article arguing each point clearly, otherwise no-one will listen to you.

>Write a proper article arguing each point clearly, otherwise no-one will listen to you.

Er...since when did journalism merit readership?

>The "wasted" supporting cast, all that stuff about the fly-on-the-wall documentary (which it wasn't) format not working -Hah! Three big arses on a bench!

OK, their argument was that none of the characters that weren't Alan Partridge were of much interest and that they existed solely to provide feedlines. This is absolutely correct, but for me it wasn't a problem - the same is the case for many 'classic' sitcoms (Fawlty Towers, for instance - Manuel mildly amusing, otherwise Basil all the way). However, where I do agree is that the uninteresting supporting characters were played by great comic actors - Sally Philips, Kevin Eldon etc - and that more should have been made of their talents.

As for the 'fly on the wall' aspect, their point was that it _should_ have worked as FOTW, because every other programme involving AP - On the Hour, KMKY etc - portrayed him as a 'real' presenter, with the cameras only existing to record those projects with which the character was involved. IAP _was_ a betrayal of this because it presented Partridge as a leading character in a straightforward sitcom, essentially a fictional character where, before, he had never been presented as such.

My God you're all so wrong! Sally Phillips and Kevin Eldon gave terrific performances in IAP. That laughing guy had me in stitches (especially the joke he tells Michael, and the classic moment when he turns out to be racist), and I think Sophie the receptionist is actually the best thing SP has done so far. In other series such as Smack the Pony and, in particular, Hippies, I found her to be somewhat limited - she can be very funny, bu only with the right material.
I still don't think there's anything wrong with the IAP format - the whole point is we see what he's like as a person, behind the camera. Part of the joy of IAP is seeing his characteristics as a broadcaster - saying rude things to his guests without realising it, struggling with metaphors, and his total inability with words - adapted to real life situations. We get to see his ineptitude at forming social relationships with others, and realise that he's not just an idiot - as we saw in KMKY - he's also totally loathsome.
If IAP was made as a mock a fly-on-the-wall documentary, than we would have lost some of the finest scenes. For instance, Alan wouldn't have allowed the camera in his hotel room during his liason with Jill, and would not have taken cameras with him when stealing a traffic cone or escaping from his greatest fan. Also, the main theme of the programme is his declining career and struggle to find broadcasting work - if the BBC were making a documentary about him he would have been thrilled, and constantly be discussing it with his PA Lynn.
IAP is a natural progression from KMKY because rather than repeating the same humour, (i.e inept broadcasting) it shows us Partridge's seedy decline, and fleshes out the character brilliantly.
Please watch it one more time, and instead of comparing it to KMKY or The Day Today, complaining about "sycophantic" praise or grumbling about whether it should have been a fly-on-the-wall documentary, judge it on its own merits as a brilliant piece of comedy in its own right.

why does everyone feel the need to rush to the corpses defence?
they're old enough to look after themselves surely?
brownie points? pah!